Inspect a URL (index status)

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds a practical quota ('~2000 calls/day per property'), which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not mention failure modes, but the annotations sufficiently convey safety.

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, information-dense sentence that lists the tool's purpose and outputs, immediately followed by the quota note. No fluff or redundant wording.

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 simple read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the key result categories and parameter constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 100%, and the description enriches key parameters: siteUrl includes property format examples and a pointer to gsc_list_sites, while inspectionUrl clarifies ownership. LanguageCode is straightforward. This goes beyond the schema's baseline.

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 ('Run the URL Inspection API') and a clear resource (a page URL). Lists concrete outputs (index status, last crawl time, canonical selection, etc.) and distinguishes itself from broader GSC tools like gsc_index_coverage or page_audit by focusing on single-URL inspection.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it—when you need inspection details for one specific URL—but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The purpose is evident, but no direct alternative guidance is provided.

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