inspect_url_enhanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not declare whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any rate limits. The description focuses on parameter format rather than behavioral traits.

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 concise with no redundant information. It uses a clear 'Args:' structure and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It explains parameters thoroughly but lacks behavioral details that would be expected to fully inform an agent. The output schema likely covers return values, so that is acceptable.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds comprehensive meaning: for site_url, it provides exact format, examples, and domain property usage; for page_url, a clear description. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'check indexing status and rich results in Google.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('URL indexing status'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'batch_url_inspection' which handles multiple 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?

The description provides parameter usage guidance (site_url format, domain vs subdomain) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'batch_url_inspection' or 'check_indexing_issues'. Usage is implied but lacks exclusion criteria.

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