inspect_url_enhanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It implies a read-only inspection but doesn't disclose behavior such as what happens with invalid URLs, whether results are returned in a specific format, or any rate limits. It basically restates the purpose without adding behavioral detail.

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 very concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by clear argument explanations. No unnecessary words or repetition, and the key details are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the parameters and purpose adequately. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this vs. sibling inspection tools, and prerequisites (like running list_properties first) are only implied via the site_url description.

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. It does: site_url is explained with examples ('https://example.com/', 'sc-domain:example.com') and domain property nuance, and page_url is defined as 'the specific URL to inspect.' This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific purpose with a clear verb and resource: 'check indexing status and rich results in Google.' It is distinguishable from batch_url_inspection by the singular 'URL' focus, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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 useful guidance on site_url (exact GSC property, domain vs subdomain usage), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like batch_url_inspection or check_indexing_issues. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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