gsc_coverage_audit

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

Annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive) are consistent with description. Description adds behavioral details: chunking in batches of 25 (due to GSC limits), cap of 200 URLs, and heuristic nature. No contradictions.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with 'heuristic coverage audit', explains the gap, and ends with output utility. 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?

Despite no output schema, description adequately explains output (verdicts: PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL plus coverage_state frequencies) and how it can be used for further inspection. Covers input limits and purpose fully.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage; both parameters (urls, site_url) are described in schema. Description does not add new semantic information beyond schema, but the schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a heuristic coverage audit of URLs, acting as a substitute for the GSC Index Coverage report which is not available via API. It specifies the input is a user-supplied URL list and output is a rollup of verdicts. Differentiates from sibling tools like gsc_inspect_url by focusing on bulk audit and rollup.

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?

Provides clear context that the tool fills a gap (missing Coverage API) and mentions how the AI host can use the rollup to decide on deep-inspection. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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