inspect_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It lists the return fields (verdict, robotsTxtState, indexingState, pageFetchState, googleCanonical, userCanonical, derived category) which gives insight into the tool's behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is invalid or not in GSC. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose in one sentence, then lists the return fields in a bullet-like format. Every sentence is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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 the tool has 2 required parameters with no schema descriptions, an output schema (not shown but referenced), and a sibling batch tool, the description covers the return values but lacks parameter details and usage context. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps for an AI agent to make fully informed decisions.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The tool description only mentions 'a single URL' but does not explain the parameters 'url' (format expectations) or 'site' (what it represents). This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 that the tool inspects a single URL in GSC to get indexing status, last crawl time, and canonical URL. The verb 'inspect' and resource 'URL in GSC' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from its sibling 'batch_url_inspection' by explicitly mentioning a single URL.

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 implies when to use this tool (for a single URL) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The sibling 'batch_url_inspection' is a natural alternative for multiple URLs, but the description does not reference it or provide usage guidance.

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