Batch index coverage check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable operational context beyond annotations: it notes the cost of one inspection call per URL against the ~2000/day quota and advises keeping batches small. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and output fields, the second adds a crucial cost warning. No redundant words or padding.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, input modes (list or sitemap), output fields summarized, and cost. It sufficiently prepares an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect, though it could elaborate on exact response formatting.

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 83% (5 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description mentions the urls/sitemap usage patterns and the limit concept, but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 runs the URL Inspection API over a batch of URLs or a sitemap and summarizes index status with specific fields (indexed, coverage state, robots state, last crawl, canonical mismatch). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from single-URL inspection tools like gsc_inspect_url.

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 for batch usage (list of URLs or sitemap) and includes a cost warning to keep batches small. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the batch nature and cost guidance make usage conditions clear.

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