indexnow_submit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses critical behavior beyond annotations: it 'ACTS ON THE LIVE WEB and cannot be undone,' the token is bound to a precise URL list, and per-endpoint HTTP statuses are returned verbatim because different statuses have different meanings. This complements the destructiveHint annotation rather than contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence earns its place: live-web danger, dry-run flow, token binding, engine coverage, and status-code semantics. The most important operational constraint is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main invocation path well. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance for host and endpoint, but these have defaults and are not required, so the overall definition is still highly usable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm, submission_token, and urls through the dry-run/confirmed workflow, but host and endpoint are left undocumented in both schema and description. This is partial compensation for a five-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Submit URLs to IndexNow so participating search engines recrawl them.' It also distinguishes this from siblings like indexnow_verify_key by describing the actual submission action and live-web effect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit workflow instructions: call without confirm for a dry run, show the dry run to the user, then call with confirm=true and the exact submission_token. It also warns that Google does not participate, clarifying when this tool will not help.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.