index_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('inspect') and outcome ('see if it is indexed or can be indexed'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to fully inform an agent about its 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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what 'indexed' means in practice, how results are returned, or error scenarios. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful for an agent.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between 'siteUrl' and 'inspectionUrl' or practical use cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect a URL to see if it is indexed or can be indexed.' It specifies the verb ('inspect') and resource ('URL') with a clear outcome. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detect_quick_wins' or 'enhanced_search_analytics', which might also involve URL analysis, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this inspection is preferred over other methods, such as 'detect_quick_wins' for broader analysis or 'submit_sitemap' for indexing actions. This lack of comparative context limits its utility for an agent.

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