Check Indexability

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context by enumerating exactly which signals are analyzed and stating that the tool returns a verdict with detailed reasoning, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope and output style.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently lists the analyzed factors and the expected return shape.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete enough: it states the input, the checks performed, and the nature of the output. It does not specify the exact verdict format, but given the absence of an output schema, the phrase 'verdict with detailed reasoning' provides sufficient expectation-setting for an agent.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter ('url') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond confirming that the URL is a page to check, so the 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 a specific action ('Check if a page is indexable'), a concrete resource (a page), and the key factors analyzed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_robots_txt and check_hreflang by presenting a broader composite check that returns a verdict rather than a single-factor check.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when an overall indexability assessment is needed for a page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the list of analyzed signals makes the intended use evident and distinct from narrower sibling tools.

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