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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses hard operational constraints: quota of ~2000/day and 600/min per property, a hard cap of 20 URLs, and that the tool STOPS mid-batch on a quota/rate error and reports rows completed. It also flags that (re)indexing is impossible via any API, avoiding a false expectation.

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?

A dense but front-loaded paragraph: the batch purpose and use case lead, then constraints, then parameter semantics. No sentence is filler, and the deliberate omission of rich-results/mobile detail is explained rather than left implicit.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description pre-announces the compact column set (page_url, verdict, coverage, last_crawl, indexing, google_canonical) and the size-limit rationale, plus quota/auth constraints. Nothing needed to select or call 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 0%, so the description carries the load and does: page_urls accepts a list of full URLs or a comma/newline-separated string, limit is capped at 20 (default 15), and site_url must be a verified property. All three parameters get meaning the schema lacks.

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+resource ('inspects the Google index status of MANY URLs') and explicitly positions itself as 'a batch wrapper over gsc_url_inspect', which separates it cleanly from that sibling without needing 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?

Gives a concrete use case ('site-wide crawl-freshness audits — which URLs Google recrawled since a content change, which are indexed, which were never crawled') and names the alternative it wraps, so the agent knows when to reach for the batch vs the single-URL tool.

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