Search Console URL inspection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a concrete behavioral constraint the annotations do not: a hard quota of 2,000 inspections per day, which materially affects how an agent should batch calls. It omits any note on error behavior for URLs outside the property.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the returned fields, ending with the quota constraint. No filler or restatement 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the response contains, which is exactly the missing structured information. For a one-parameter, read-only inspection tool this is nearly sufficient; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that the URL must belong to the configured Search Console property. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource and action: returns Google index status for a single URL via the URL Inspection API, enumerating the returned fields (verdict, coverage state, canonicals, robots.txt, fetch state, last crawl). An agent can tell this is a per-URL diagnostic read. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling indexing_status, so it stops short of a 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?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'one URL' scoping, and the quota line hints that it is a metered, limited operation. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over indexing_status or gsc_performance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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