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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey safety. It describes what the tool checks but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or has rate limits. The description is reasonably transparent for an inspection tool but lacks some behavioral details.

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 concise sentences: first communicates action and scope, second lists use cases. No redundant words.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and when to use it, but with no output schema, it lacks any indication of return format or contents. This is a notable gap for a tool that likely returns structured inspection results.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema definitions. Baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Inspect a URL in Google Search Console') and lists the aspects checked (indexing status, crawl errors, mobile usability, rich results). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_url (fetching page content) and get_search_performance (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?

Explicit use cases are provided ('technical SEO audits, diagnosing why pages aren't appearing in search, or checking mobile-friendliness'). No explicit exclusions or alternatives, but context is clear.

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