Inspect a URL's index status

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

Annotations already declare read-only and safe behavior. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as 'Returns a compact projection, not the full raw blob' and a 'one-line mobile/rich-results summary', setting expectations for response format.

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 core functionality and followed by a practical use case. No wasted words 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?

Even without an output schema, the description mentions key returned fields and the compact nature of the response. It is complete for a simple read-only inspection tool, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid URLs, which are minor.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond implying the inspection_url, 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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') applied to a single URL, with a clear outcome ('index status') and detailed data points (coverage state, crawl time, canonical). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on single-URL inspection versus site-wide analytics or sitemaps.

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 provides a clear use case: 'debug why isn't this page indexed'. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare with alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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