inspect_url_enhanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or how non-indexed URLs are handled. 'Inspection' implies non-mutating, but this is not explicit.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The arg details are necessary and directly useful, with no redundant text.

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 (two parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details. The main gap is the lack of behavioral disclosure (e.g., read-only nature, rate limits), but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 zero descriptions for parameters, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: site_url is explained with exact property formats ('https://example.com/' or 'sc-domain:example.com') and domain property behavior, while page_url is defined as the specific URL to inspect. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 a clear purpose: 'Enhanced URL inspection to check indexing status and rich results in Google.' It specifies the resource (URL) and the function (inspection for indexing/rich results), but does not explicitly distinguish when to use this over sibling batch_url_inspection or check_indexing_issues.

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 guidance on how to use the parameters (e.g., getting site_url from list_properties and handling domain properties), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied for inspecting a single URL, but no exclusions are mentioned.

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