Pre-migration URL safety net

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

The annotations already signal read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds rich detail beyond that: it explains the source collection, URL rewriting, redirect following, and the exact classification categories (OK, REDIRECTED, REDIRECT_TO_HOME, CHAIN, NOT_FOUND, ERROR) plus sorting by old-site clicks. This substantially clarifies runtime behavior without contradicting the 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 a single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then explains the process and classification in a logical order. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no filler or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format by enumerating the classification values and the sorting logic. It covers input sources, process, and output expectations. For a read-only, non-destructive tool with these annotations, nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The tool description indirectly references several parameters (period via 'pages with impressions in the period', old sitemap, new host) but does not explicitly explain the undocumented ones like concurrency or maxUrls. It adds some context beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter descriptions, warranting a middle score.

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 precise statement of what the tool does: verify that every URL on the old site still works on the new one before migration. It names the specific resources (Search Console, sitemap) and the classification outcomes, making its purpose unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like sitemap_check or robots_check.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'Before pointing a domain at a new (static) site.' This tells an agent exactly when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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