inspect_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool returns a set of data and includes rules about not speculating beyond the data, but it never states whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects. The presentation and analysis instructions are helpful but pertain to agent output formatting, not the tool's internal behavior.

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 structured with a clear first sentence followed by return-field details, analysis rules, and presentation guidelines. While the presentation section is long, it is clearly labeled and provides necessary output formatting context; no sentences are redundant.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by listing all returned data categories and instructing the agent on how to handle insufficient data. It does not mention potential errors, access requirements, or edge cases, but for a single-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description is fairly 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?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'url' with a clear description ('The full URL to inspect'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema entirely.

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 opens with 'Check if a URL is indexed and why or why not', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It then enumerates the output categories (indexing status, crawl date, canonical, robots/noindex, mobile usability), distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_url or quick_wins.

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 makes the tool's use case obvious—diagnosing why a URL is or isn't indexed—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as submit_url. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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