Search Console: Inspect url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds value by enumerating the returned payload and by naming a hard failure mode (cross-property rejection). It omits quota, latency, or accuracy caveats, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences: purpose, then return contents, then the constraint. The value proposition is front-loaded and no sentence is wasted or repeated.

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?

For a complex, multi-facet inspection tool with no output schema, the description compensates well on return values and scope. It is incomplete on the input side, however, leaving the site vs. site_url distinction and the language parameter entirely to inference.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only explains `inspection_url` (scope constraint). Both `site` and `site_url` are required and completely undefined — their apparent redundancy is the likeliest source of caller error — and `language` is never mentioned at all.

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 names a specific verb and resource — inspecting a URL's indexing status within a Search Console property — and lists exactly what data comes back (index status, crawling, mobile usability, rich results, AMP). No sibling tool in the catalog overlaps with this behavior, so an agent can identify the right tool without further disambiguation.

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 states a concrete precondition: the inspection URL must fall under the property's scope, and cross-property inspection is rejected by the Google API. It gives no explicit routing guidance to alternatives such as search_analytics for performance data, but the constraint it does provide is the one most likely to cause a failed call.

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