gsc_inspect_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it reads Google's stored record and does not perform a live test, implying a non-mutating read. However, it omits quota/rate-limit behavior and any permissions or site-verification requirements that are material for the URL Inspection surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the subject, and the key scope limitation with zero filler. Every clause earns its place, with the negative constraint placed last as a qualifier.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only behavioral source, and for a two-required-param read tool it covers the core purpose adequately. It nonetheless leaves gaps: the returned index-status fields and the constraint that url must belong to the verified siteUrl property are not addressed.

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%, and both parameters (url, siteUrl) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the relationship between the two required parameters or the format constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: checking Google's recorded index status for a URL. It also clarifies what it is not ('no ejecuta una prueba en vivo'), which helps distinguish it from a live-test capability. It stops short of naming any sibling tool (e.g. gsc_page_performance, bing_url_info) as the alternative.

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 clause 'no ejecuta una prueba en vivo' implies when this tool applies (retrieving stored index state rather than triggering a fresh crawl), but it never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions versus the many sibling reporting tools. Usage is left to inference.

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