indexing_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to disclose that this is a read-only operation, lacks mention of authorization requirements or rate limits, and does not describe the response format or error handling. The minimal description leaves the agent without important behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return status (e.g., notification type, timestamp), prerequisites (URL must have been submitted), or how to interpret the results. For a status-checking tool, this is insufficiently complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already described in the schema (siteUrl and url). The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: checking notification status for a previously submitted URL. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('notification status for a URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like indexing_submit_url and indexing_remove_url.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the URL must have been submitted via the Indexing API), nor does it specify that it should be used after submission to verify status. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.

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