inspect_meta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it uses HTTP GET and returns specific fields, but does not disclose limitations like JavaScript rendering or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and explicitly lists the returned fields. No extraneous information, every part earns its place.

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 is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers its purpose and output. Annotations handle behavioral traits. It could mention limitations like no JS rendering, but overall it is complete enough for this tool's complexity.

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 schema already describes the single parameter 'url' as an absolute http(s) URL. The description reinforces that it fetches a single URL and is HTTP GET, but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches a single URL and returns specific on-page SEO elements (title, meta description, meta robots, canonical, Open Graph + Twitter Card tags, hreflang list, H1 count). This differentiates it from sibling tools like gsc_inspect_url which are Google Search Console specific.

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 mentions it is a read-only HTTP GET and lists the returned SEO surface, implying use for general URL inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like gsc_inspect_url or check_canonical, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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