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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it defines the healthScore formula weights, freshness buckets with day thresholds, the alert taxonomy, and the important hasData=false caveat meaning the inspection sync isn't enabled. It omits any note on result volume, pagination, or cost for large properties, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the core is a single long run-on sentence enumerating many fields, and the full Portuguese restatement at the end duplicates content without adding information for an English-preferring agent. Density is high but structure is weak.

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, and the description fully compensates by spelling out the returned fields, their definitions, thresholds, and the empty-data condition. An agent can call this and interpret the response without further documentation.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description indirectly clarifies what alertLimit governs by enumerating the alert categories, but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail for 'site' beyond the schema's displayName/siteUrl/id guidance.

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 resource and scope: indexing status of the property's inspected URLs, with the exact metrics returned (healthScore, indexed counts, coverageState breakdown, freshness, alerts, weekly coverage). It does not name or differentiate from close siblings like list_url_inspections or get_indexing_requests, even though its 'submissions' section overlaps with the latter.

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?

Gives concrete trigger questions ('are my pages indexed', 'did Google drop a page') and a task (crawl staleness), which is clear context for selection. It stops short of exclusions or routing rules (e.g., 'use list_url_inspections for raw per-URL inspection rows'), so an agent must infer the boundary from siblings.

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