Google Search Console MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions 'within API limits' as a behavioral constraint and implies read-only access via 'Inspect', but fails to disclose what the inspection returns (index status, coverage details, etc.), specific limit thresholds, or error behaviors when limits are exceeded.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the purpose statement followed by structured Args documentation. Every sentence provides value—either scoping the operation or detailing parameter semantics. The Python-docstring style 'Args:' format is slightly unconventional but remains clear and space-efficient.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and zero annotations, the description adequately covers input requirements but leaves significant gaps regarding output behavior. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain what inspection data is returned (e.g., index status, last crawl date), which is absent here.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by providing rich semantic context: 'site_url' references the source tool 'list_properties', includes format examples ('https://...' vs 'sc-domain:...'), and explains domain property scoping; 'urls' clarifies the input format ('one per line'). This exceeds baseline expectations for undocumented schemas.

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 'Inspect[s] multiple URLs in batch' with the scope '(within API limits)', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'inspect_url_enhanced'—while 'batch' implies multi-URL handling, explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the single-URL alternative would strengthen clarity.

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 implicit usage guidance through the Args section, explaining how to handle domain properties vs. subdomains ('Domain properties cover all subdomains...'). However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance comparing this batch tool to 'inspect_url_enhanced' or prerequisites for the inspection itself.

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