indexing_submit_url

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lacks details on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or response (e.g., confirmation). The agent doesn't know if this is a safe read operation or has destructive potential.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and add a key constraint. No redundant information.

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 no output schema and missing annotations, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain what happens after submission, response format, or how to choose between Google and Bing engines despite sibling tools like 'bing_url_submit'.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds value by noting Google's API limitation for JobPosting/BroadcastEvent, but doesn't elaborate on parameter format or usage beyond schema.

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 action ('Submit a URL for indexing') and resource ('a URL'), and specifies it notifies Google or Bing. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'indexing_remove_url' and 'indexing_batch_submit' by focusing on single URL submission.

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 gives context for use ('when a page was updated') and mentions API restrictions for Google. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with peers like 'bing_url_submit' or 'indexing_batch_submit'.

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