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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the background job cadence, the meaning of google_inspection_available=false (no verified Google property, so no inspection ever occurs), the result ordering (not-indexed first), and cost. These are exactly the operational traits 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then return contents, then freshness caveat, then the sibling alternative and cost. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the long parenthetical field list makes it heavier than strictly necessary.

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 fully carries the burden: it describes per-page fields, verdict values, coverage/robots/indexing states, summary counts, and sort order. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the tool 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 limit, offset, status and site_id are already fully documented with enum values. The description adds only an indirect hint about ordering ('not-indexed pages come first') and no extra syntax or format detail, which is the baseline case.

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 (get Google index status of pages tracked on a website's Indexing page) and enumerates the exact fields returned per page plus summary counts. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling inspection tools without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes single-URL live lookups to get_gsc_url_inspection and notes the 0-credit cost and the roughly daily background re-inspection cadence, which tells the agent when data is fresh enough. No explicit 'when not to use this' for other cases (e.g. site-wide crawl data), so not quite a 5.

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