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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, but the description adds valuable context: it returns specific fields (coverage state, last crawl, mobile usability, rich results) and explicitly requires GSC to be connected, with an integration instruction. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose and output, the second covers the prerequisite and actionable next step. No redundancy or filler, front-loaded with the key action.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the main return fields, setting expectations. It also addresses setup requirements and integration flow. While it doesn't describe interpretation of results or edge cases, it is sufficient for a small, well-scoped read tool.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions and examples, so the description adds little extra meaning. It only reinforces 'specific URL' which is already apparent, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and a specific resource 'a specific URL's indexing status in Google Search', clearly distinguishing it from sibling GSC tools that focus on trends, breakdowns, or page lists. It immediately conveys the tool's unique function.

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 implies this tool is for inspecting a single URL, while sibling tools cover aggregate or different data types, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over the many other GSC tools. It only mentions the prerequisite of connecting Google Search Console, not exclusions or alternatives.

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