inspect_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses a hard quota (2000 calls/day per property) and the required access level (Owner or Full). It does not state whether the call is purely read-only or what happens on quota exhaustion, but quota and permission disclosure is exactly the context an agent needs before invoking.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and constraints trailing as a short qualification. The enumerated output list is dense but each item is a distinct verdict an agent may care about, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return shape (the enumerated verdicts are partly redundant with it). It covers operational constraints well but leaves parameter formats undocumented, which matters most for a tool whose schema provides zero prose. Adequate overall, with a clear gap on inputs.

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% for all three parameters, so the description is the only place meaning could be added – and it adds none. 'site' in particular is ambiguous (property format such as sc-domain: vs. URL prefix) and 'url' is unspecified, so an agent must guess formats for the two required arguments.

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 ('Run URL Inspection for a page') and enumerates the concrete outputs: index status, coverage verdict, canonical, last crawl, robots state, mobile and rich-result verdicts. It does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling (list_sites, search_analytics, compare_periods, list_sitemaps), though the operation is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 enumerated outputs – an agent infers this is for diagnosing how a single URL is indexed. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative named for the adjacent tasks (e.g. comparing periods or pulling analytics), so the routing burden is left to the reader.

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