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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the 50-URL batch cap, per-URL independent failure isolation, workspace scoping, and the fact that it reads stored data without consuming AI credits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three focused sentences with no filler: purpose first, then limits and failure behavior, then scoping and cost. Every sentence contributes necessary operational information and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 existing output schema and safety annotations, the description covers all non-obvious operational needs: scope, batch caps, failure isolation, and cost. An agent has everything required to invoke the tool correctly without additional inference.

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% and each parameter already has a descriptive comment. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the batch limit, the semantics of per-URL independent reporting, and why no domain/site parameter is required due to workspace scoping.

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 leads with a specific verb 'Check' and a precise resource: Google index status and coverage diagnostics, listing concrete diagnostic aspects like coverage state, crawl status, and robots/canonical issues. It clearly distinguishes single-URL from batch operation, which separates it from sibling analytics tools like gsc_performance and gsc_insights.

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 conveys clear operational context: batch inspection caps at 50 URLs per call, failure isolation behavior, and the fact that the tool is pre-scoped so no domain/site parameter is needed. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it lacks full routing guidance.

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