gsc_inspect_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the categories of information returned but does not mention read-only behavior, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The verb 'Inspect' suggests a safe read operation, but it is not explicitly stated, leaving a transparency gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a useful use-case. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or clutter.

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 description covers purpose and a use case, and the schema handles parameter details. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain the structure or interpretation of the inspection results. It is adequate but could offer more context on what 'issues' means or how to act on findings.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (url and siteUrl), including an example and a pointer to gsc_list_sites. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 inspects a URL and lists what it returns: indexing status, crawl info, mobile usability, and any issues. The verb 'Inspect' and resource 'URL' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling analytics tools like gsc_search_analytics which handle aggregate data.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Useful for debugging why a page isn't appearing in search.' This implies when to use the tool, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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