Inspect a URL (index status)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the explicit quota (~2000 calls/day per property) and the breadth of checks performed (mobile usability, rich results, AMP). This helps an agent anticipate rate limits and understand the result scope without conflicting with any annotation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the specific checks in a compact list. The quota note is appended efficiently at the end. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause contributes meaningful information, making it appropriately concise.

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?

For a tool with moderate complexity (multiple checks but no nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the main outputs and the key constraint (quota). It does not mention return format, but that is often inferred from Search Console's inspection response. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect, though a brief note on response structure could elevate completeness to 5.

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 full descriptions for all three parameters, including the requirement that inspectionUrl must belong to the property. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what schema states; it simply reiterates the general purpose. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not compensate further.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run the URL Inspection API for a page') and enumerates concrete outputs (index status, crawl time, canonical, robots, mobile, rich results, AMP). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_index_coverage or gsc_rich_results_report, which operate at site level and cover different data. An agent can immediately identify what this tool does and what it returns.

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 of the tool's purpose by listing the exact checks performed, which implies when it should be used (e.g., when a single-page inspection is needed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like gsc_index_coverage or gsc_site_snapshot. It offers no exclusions, only a clear scope, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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