Check URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-dependency profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results reflect "as Google sees it," hinting at live Google-side data rather than a cached local copy, but omits any mention of latency, quota/rate limits, or what happens when the URL is not in the property.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the return facets listed compactly; no filler and nothing buried.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, listing the returned facets (index status, last crawl, canonical, robots, rich results) usefully substitutes for a return-value spec. The only real gap is routing between this tool and the plural batch sibling, which sibling differentiation should have handled.

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%, and the site_url property already explains the GSC property format, domain-property behavior and subdomain filtering. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Check a URL") and enumerates the exact facets returned: index status, last crawl, canonical, robots, rich results. Very clear what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling wsp_check_urls_gsc, which invites mis-selection.

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?

Usage is only implied through the singular "a URL" – an agent can infer this is the single-URL inspector versus the batch sibling, but the description never says so or states prerequisites. It also doesn't say whether the URL must already be known/verified in the property.

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