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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context on the kind of opportunities returned, which is useful, but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, data freshness, or how results are structured.

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 sentence that efficiently packs the key criteria into a concise list. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though it could be split for readability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the format of the returned opportunities or how the agent should act on them. It also lacks any usage context, such as whether results are aggregated or time-series. This makes the description inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 67% (site and days have descriptions, limit does not). The description does not mention any parameters or how they influence the results, so it adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline for this coverage level is 3.

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 identifies opportunities: queries with high impressions but low clicks, queries ranking #8-20, and pages losing clicks. This is specific and distinguishes it from raw data tools like search_performance, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as search_performance or site_overview. The description only lists the types of opportunities, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what kind of information will be returned: indexed status, crawl time, canonical choice, and blocking issues. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss error conditions or freshness limitations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and quickly enumerates the key outputs. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 two-required-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential return categories even without an output schema. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though a note about response shape or failure modes would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, with both `site` and `url` already documented. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource (a specific URL) and the operation (Google URL Inspection), and enumerates what it answers: indexed status, crawl date, Google-chosen canonical, and blocking issues. This differentiates it from sibling site-level tools like site_overview and search_performance without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 the clear use case: investigate a specific page's indexing and blocking status in Google. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough that an agent can reasonably select this tool for per-URL diagnostics.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered structurally. The description adds little beyond restating the listing behavior and the data source, providing no extra context about response shape or scope.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, which is exactly appropriate for a tool this simple.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is essentially complete: it names the exact data source and action. It could optionally mention what the returned list contains, but the lack of output schema does not create a significant gap at this complexity level.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Schema coverage is trivially complete, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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's action ('List') and resource ('websites in your Google Search Console'), making the purpose unmistakable. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like site_overview or search_performance, though its name and title already convey the listing function.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as site_overview or search_performance. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it can optionally compare with the previous period, which is a behavioral detail, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or rate limits. It does not contradict 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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists capabilities. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only query tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary features but omits details like sorting and limits, which are available in the schema. It is functional but not exhaustive for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates for key parameters like group_by (lists grouping dimensions), filter_page/filter_query ('filter by text'), and compare_previous ('compare with the previous period'). It does not add value for sort_by or limit, but those have defaults and enums, so the partial compensation is adequate.

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 identifies this as a flexible Search Console query for performance data, listing grouping, filtering, and comparison options. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like site_overview, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage through its listed capabilities (grouping, filtering, comparing) but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like site_overview or find_opportunities. An agent can infer when it is appropriate, but there are no exclusions stated.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful context about the returned status fields, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as data freshness, pagination, or whether the result includes all sitemaps. This is modest added value beyond 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. It is more of a labeled phrase than a complete sentence, but every phrase communicates a meaningful aspect of the tool's output.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description plus annotations and schema cover the core invocation details. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools.

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 fully describes the only parameter, site, with an example and a pointer to list_sites. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the entire semantic burden.

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 identifies the specific resource ('Sitemaps submitted to Google') and the data shown ('last read, errors, warnings, URL counts'), making the tool's function fairly clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough.

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 use this tool versus siblings like site_overview or inspect_url. The intended context is implied—checking sitemap submission status—but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavior: comparison against the previous period, pages that gained/lost, and up to 3 recommendations. It does not disclose deeper behaviors like data limits, pagination, or interpretation caveats, but given the read-only annotation the safety profile is covered.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key metrics and ends with a clear call to action. Every phrase contributes information, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 2-parameter overview tool, the description covers the main output elements: key metrics, comparison period, page changes, and recommendations. There is no output schema, so the description reasonably conveys what the agent can expect. It does not detail return formatting or exact comparison calculations, but these are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description's 'vs the previous period' aligns with the days parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's content: clicks, impressions, CTR, average position, top gaining/losing pages, and recommendations. It is distinct from siblings like inspect_url or search_performance by describing a site-level overview, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or use a strong imperative verb.

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 phrase 'Start here' gives explicit guidance that this is the entry-point tool for site analysis. It establishes clear context for when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly route to alternatives such as find_opportunities or search_performance.

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