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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes the output fields, which is helpful, but it does not mention authentication needs, property access requirements, or error cases such as URLs outside the Search Console property. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

A single sentence packs the tool's purpose, scope, and expected output with no filler. The key information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values and the single-URL scope. It could be more complete by noting operational caveats, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 100%, and the description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents both 'url' and 'site'.

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 identifies the resource ('one URL') and the exact information returned: indexed status, last crawl date, and Google-chosen canonical. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like page_queries or site_overview, despite the lack of an explicit verb.

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 'for one URL' framing gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need Google's index status for a specific URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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