gsc_inspect_url

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

With no annotations, description takes full burden. It explains the broad output structure (indexStatusResult, mobileUsabilityResult, etc.) and mentions quota constraints. Slightly lacks detail on authentication or error conditions, but overall transparent about 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?

Description is well-structured: overview sentence, then bullet-style breakdown of return fields, followed by usage guidelines and quota note. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant sentences. Appropriate length for the complexity.

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?

Given an output schema exists (context: 'Has output schema: true'), description provides additional context on return sub-objects, parameter formats, and usage. Could include error handling or rate limit retry suggestions, but overall complete for a URL inspection tool.

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 has 0% coverage (no descriptions), but description adds significant detail: site_url format (sc-domain: vs URL-prefix), requirement for authenticated access, page_url being fully qualified under site_url. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only fields.

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?

Description clearly states 'Full URL Inspection for a single page' with specific details (index, mobile, rich results, AMP). Distinguishes itself from sibling gsc_indexing_issues by noting it provides 'deep detail for one URL' vs 'quick indexed-or-not check across many URLs.'

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?

Explicit usage recommendation: 'Use this when you need deep detail for one URL; for a quick indexed-or-not check across many URLs use gsc_indexing_issues instead.' Also provides quota limits (60 req/min, 2000/day), aiding agent decision-making.

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