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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already establish safety), the description discloses scope limits (1–20 URLs, single property), the important caveat that results describe the last-indexed version rather than a live test, and an explicit capability boundary ('cannot request indexing, a recrawl or change anything'). These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the trigger condition before the mechanics and return payload, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and fairly long, but the length is justified by the enumerated return fields and the live-vs-indexed caveat, so nothing reads as 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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain returns, yet it does so usefully while also covering scope, caveats, and limits. For a 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 required parameters are already documented in the schema (including the 1–20 bounds and the property-membership requirement). The description restates the URL-count limit and the property_id constraint without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (runs Search Console URL Inspection for full URLs of one property) and enumerates the returned per-URL fields, which cleanly separates it from the sibling performance/sitemap/property tools. An agent can identify this tool's domain without opening the schema.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger list ('when the user asks whether specific pages are indexed by Google, why a page is not on Google, or which canonical Google chose'), which is clear usage context. It does not, however, name or exclude any sibling alternative (e.g. get_performance or list_sitemaps), so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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