Searchconsole.Url Inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing behavioral: it doesn't mention the URL Inspection API's tight per-property daily quota, that results reflect Google's cached index state rather than a live crawl, or that the call can fail for unverified properties. Only the fact that this is a lookup rather than a mutation is implicit in "inspect".

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the reason so much is left unspecified.

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?

An output schema covers return values, so that needn't be described, but for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations the description should at minimum disambiguate the two URL parameters and note the property-access prerequisite. Neither is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: it never explains that site_url is the Search Console property identifier (which can be a sc-domain: form) while inspection_url is the fully-qualified URL to inspect. Those two names are easy to confuse without that clarification.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Inspect") with a specific resource ("a URL's index status for a property"), and the parenthetical names the underlying API. It clearly reads as distinct from the other Search Console siblings (search_analytics, sitemaps.*), though it doesn't explicitly state the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus searchconsole.search_analytics or sitemaps.list, and no prerequisites are stated — notably that site_url must be a property the caller has verified access to and that inspection_url must belong to that property. The agent must infer all of this.

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