gsc_inspect_url

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Detailed URL inspection' but does not specify whether it performs a live check or uses cached data, what data is returned, or any rate limits or access requirements. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 two sentences plus an Args section. It's concise and front-loaded with purpose. The Args section adds clarity but is standard. No excessive verbosity.

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 2 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema existing, the description is minimally adequate. It explains parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what the output contains) and usage guidance. Could be more 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains site_url format (including 'sc-domain:example.com') and page_url purpose. This adds value beyond the schema. However, could provide more detail on valid formats for page_url.

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 states 'Detailed URL inspection for a specific page', which clearly identifies the verb (inspect) and resource (URL/page). This distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_performance_overview (aggregate data) and gsc_audit (audit entire site). However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, when to use inspect_url vs gsc_indexing_issues or gsc_site_details is not mentioned. Also, no prerequisites or limitations are stated.

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