searchconsole inspect url

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context with Google's hard quota of 2,000 inspections per property per day, which is decision-relevant for an agent planning calls. It stops short of saying what happens on quota exhaustion or how errors surface.

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, both earning their place: the core action and scope comes first, the operational limit second. No redundancy or restating of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for an inspection tool the property-identifier format and the role of language_code are exactly what an agent gets wrong, and neither is addressed.

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 should carry the parameter burden. 'One URL inside a property' partially explains the url/site_url relationship, but the third parameter (language_code, default en-US) is never mentioned, and nothing clarifies whether site_url must be a URL-prefix or sc-domain property format.

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 ('inspect') and resource ('Google's index status for one URL inside a property'), which clearly separates it from the analytics-oriented sibling searchconsole_query_search_analytics. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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 never says when to use this tool versus searchconsole_query_search_analytics or searchconsole_list_sites, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a verified property. The only usage-adjacent information is the implicit 'inside a property' scoping and the quota limit, which is a constraint rather than guidance.

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