gsc_inspect_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool reports but doesn't disclose whether it triggers a fresh Google index inspection (which can be rate-limited), whether it requires special permissions, whether results are live or cached, or what happens if the URL isn't in the index. These are meaningful behavioral gaps for a tool that may make an external inspection call.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists concrete outputs. It is appropriately concise, though it misses a chance to include a usage hint or rate-limit note in the same space.

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?

The tool is moderately complex as a GSC URL inspection utility, and there is no output schema or annotations. The description covers the basic inputs and result categories, but lacks important context like what the response contains, whether the inspection is live, and how it relates to other GSC tools. It is minimally adequate but not complete for an agent deciding whether to call it versus gsc_coverage_report.

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 67%: siteUrl and inspectionUrl are documented with examples, but languageCode has no description. The description doesn't clarify what languageCode does or provide format guidance beyond the schema. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies, with the small 33% uncovered parameter lowering the score slightly.

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 it inspects a URL and explicitly lists the key outputs: index status, mobile usability, and rich results. It uses a specific verb ('Inspects') and resource ('a URL'), and the outputs distinguish it from the many other SEO/analytics sibling tools.

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 a diagnostic use case (checking a specific URL's Google Search Console status), but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose it over siblings like gsc_coverage_report or gsc_query_performance. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites such as site verification or property access.

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