Inspect a URL's index status

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral details: quota limits (2,000/day and 600/min), the retired mobileUsabilityResult field, the distinction between indexed and live status, and the potential for 429/403 errors. This rich context goes far beyond what annotations provide and helps the agent anticipate real-world behavior.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It begins with a clear purpose, then details the return structure (essential since there is no output schema), and ends with practical usage warnings. The information is well-organized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and constraints.

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?

Given the complexity of the return object and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates all major response fields, explains the non-live nature, flags deprecated fields, and provides quota guidance. This fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters, including formats and examples (e.g., site_url format, language_code default). The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema covers, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool inspects a URL's status in the Google index via the URL Inspection API. It specifies the resource ('URL'), the action ('inspects'), and the scope ('status in the Google index'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage sites or sitemaps.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool, including a caveat that it returns only the currently indexed version and is NOT a live test. It also includes a quota warning, guiding agents to throttle batch inspections. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when NOT to use it beyond the live-test exclusion.

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