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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a quota constraint, an ownership precondition, and the read-only nature of an inspection. It stops short of stating auth/scopes explicitly beyond the account parameter.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the precondition, then the quota. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned fields well enough for an agent to know what it gets back, and covers constraints and quota. A minor gap: it doesn't state error behavior (e.g., URL not on site) beyond the constraint.

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 the schema already documents url, site, and account. The description only reinforces the url constraint ('must belong to the site') without adding format/syntax meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Inspect) and resource (one URL in Google Search Console via the URL Inspection API), and enumerates the exact facets returned: index status, coverage state, last crawl, robots.txt/fetch state, and declared vs. chosen canonical. This clearly separates it from sibling gsc_query/gsc_sites.

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?

Provides a concrete precondition ('The URL must belong to the site') and a rate ceiling ('About 2,000 inspections a day per site'), which tells the agent when the call is valid and cost-bounded. It does not, however, contrast this tool with gsc_query or gsc_sites to help route the choice.

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