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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds context beyond annotations: quota limit, that indexing is not possible via API, and the specific diagnostic scope. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding distinct value: first states purpose and outputs, second emphasizes diagnostic role, third notes quota and caution. No fluff, front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists specific return fields (index verdict, coverage state, etc.). It also mentions quota and read-only nature. For a single-parameter tool, it is fairly complete, though missing error or response format details.

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 the description restates the parameter (url) with similar wording. It does not add new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so scores baseline 3.

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 specifies the verb (inspect), resource (URL index status), and lists concrete outputs (index verdict, coverage state, last crawl time, robots state, canonical resolution). It also explicitly states it is 'THE tool for diagnosing why a page has no impressions,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like fleet_gsc_query or fleet_gsc_top_pages.

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 provides a quota (2,000 inspections/day) and a caution to 'batch thoughtfully.' It positions the tool as the primary diagnostic for impression issues, implying when to use it. It also clarifies read-only nature, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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