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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is 'live' and names the reported categories, which is useful context, but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or whether inspecting a non-indexed URL errors.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The concrete capability list is front-loaded and the use-case framing follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. The only gap is the undocumented siteUrl parameter and no indication of what happens for a non-indexed or invalid URL.

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 67%: url and languageCode are documented in the schema, siteUrl is not. The description adds no parameter detail beyond reinforcing the single-URL scope, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds meaning over the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live index status for one URL') and enumerates exactly what it reports: indexed status, Google-selected canonical, mobile usability, rich results. The framing sentence ('why isn't this page performing') further distinguishes it from the create/update/report siblings.

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?

Gives a clear situational trigger: use it diagnostically before deciding what to change on a page. However, it names no alternative — notably find_zero_visibility_pages, the closest sibling, is not mentioned, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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