gsc_inspect_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by elaborating on the specific data returned (index verdict, coverage state, crawl info, canonicals, mobile/rich-results). No contradictory information.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Inspect a single URL') and efficiently lists the returned data types. No waste or redundancy.

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 lacking an output schema, the description compensates by listing key return fields. However, it uses terms like 'index verdict' without explanation and omits prerequisites (e.g., valid property) or error conditions. Still fairly complete for a read tool with rich annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters themselves.

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 inspects a single URL via the URL Inspection API and lists the specific information it returns (index verdict, coverage state, crawl info, canonicals, mobile/rich-results). It distinguishes from the sibling tool gsc_batch_inspect_urls which operates on 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 implies use for detailed inspection of a single URL, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsc_search_analytics or gsc_batch_inspect_urls. No exclusion criteria or context are provided.

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