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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral facts that aren't in annotations: the 2,000/day/property cap and that usage is tracked across both UI and MCP calls, which explains why local counters may disagree.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the constraint, then the when-to-call advice. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation here. The description covers the cap, cross-surface usage tracking, and the recommended call timing — everything needed to use this quota-check tool 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 coverage is 0% for the single siteUrl parameter, so the description carries some burden. It says "for a property," hinting that siteUrl identifies a GSC property, but adds no format details (full URL vs. sc-domain: prefix) beyond that. Baseline 3 given only one simple parameter.

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 (returns) and resource (remaining URL inspection quota) with scope (for a property today). An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools like bulk_inspect_urls or inspect_url.

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 timing guidance: "Call this before bulk inspections to avoid surprises." It implies the alternative (bulk_inspect_urls) and the precondition for using this tool, though it doesn't name that sibling directly or state when not to call it.

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