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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the call returns (indexing verdict, coverage state, crawl details, canonical information), that each call inspects exactly one URL, that quota is limited, and that cost is 15 tokens. This is meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 description is compact and well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, return expectations, quota warning, and cost. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundancy.

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 single-URL inspection tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: prerequisite call, parameter behavior, return content, quota constraint, and cost. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a small amount of clarification around site_url default behavior and the dependency on list_sites, but this largely mirrors the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not materially expand parameter semantics.

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 clear, specific action: 'Inspect indexing status for a single URL in Search Console.' It names the resource (Search Console), the target (single URL), and the type of result (indexing status), distinguishing it from broader tools like query_search_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?

The description gives explicit usage context: it tells the agent to call google-search-console.list_sites to discover sites, explains how to handle site_url (omit for default, pass exact value from the response), and warns about the limited daily quota. It does not explicitly name alternative tools beyond list_sites, so it stops slightly short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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