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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world inspection. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing the returned inspection fields and disclosing the daily quota of about 2,000 inspections per property.

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 definition is two dense sentences with no wasted lead-in: it states the resource scope first, then enumerates the key returned fields, then ends with the quota. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the important return categories: coverage state, last crawl, fetch result, robots.txt, canonical selection, sitemap/referring pages, mobile usability, and rich results. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully described parameter schema, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both the optional site parameter and the required urls parameter are already documented. The description repeats the 20-URL limit but adds no syntax, formatting, or per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspect up to 20 URLs via Search Console URL Inspection. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing Google's own per-URL indexing, crawl, canonical, and rich-result data rather than aggregate analytics.

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 implies usage by naming Search Console URL Inspection and the 20-URL cap, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings such as gsc_search_analytics or gsc_sitemaps, nor does it state when not to use it.

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