gsc_inspect_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses that the tool returns specific data (coverage state, last crawl time, mobile usability, etc.) and notes performance constraints (slow, rate-limited). No destructive behavior is implied.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, return data, and performance warning. No redundant or extraneous information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 return values (partially listed, but output schema exists for details) and performance characteristics. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., GSC access) or error handling info, but for a simple inspection tool, it is reasonably complete.

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%, and the description does not add meaning to the three parameters (site_url, url, language_code). It only generically refers to 'a specific URL', leaving the agent to infer parameter roles from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('index status for a specific URL via the URL Inspection API'). It enumerates the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle different operations (e.g., gsc_list_sites, gsc_performance).

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 explicitly warns about slowness (~1s/call) and rate limiting, providing crucial usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the warning helps agents decide whether to use it.

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