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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the output is mechanical observations and explicitly excluding factual or ranking validation, which an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema alone.

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?

The entire description is one well-structured sentence with the main action front-loaded and a clarifying scope clause after the semicolon. There is no redundancy or filler; every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity, single-parameter tool with helpful annotations, the description covers what is inspected and explicitly sets expectations about what it does not do. It does not describe the exact output shape, but the lack of an output schema is less critical given the simple observational purpose.

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%, and the description does not explicitly document the url parameter. However, with a single required string url and the description naming the signals the tool inspects, the meaning is reasonably inferable; it just does not fully compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 names a specific resource ('canonical, title, H1, schema and crawler signals') and a specific action ('inspect'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself by saying it is 'not factual or ranking validation', but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like fetch or discovery_status.

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?

The phrase 'mechanical observations, not factual or ranking validation' implies when not to use the tool, and the listed signals imply when it is appropriate. However, it never names alternatives or gives explicit conditions such as 'use discovery_status for indexing status' or 'use fetch for raw page content', leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.

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