inspect_url_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what information is returned (index coverage, crawl status, mobile usability, rich results), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. First sentence states the tool's core purpose, second enumerates the key output categories. No redundancy or filler.

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 has three fully documented parameters and an output schema, so return values are already specified. The description covers the essential purpose and informational content; lacking only explicit usage caveats, which are minor given the straightforward read-like nature.

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%, with each parameter already explained (site_url as property, inspection_url as fully-qualified URL, language_code as localization). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Inspect' with clear resource 'URL's index status in Google Search' and lists return categories (index coverage, crawl status, mobile usability, rich results), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on sites, sitemaps, and analytics.

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?

Provides clear context that this tool inspects a specific URL's status within Google Search, making it obvious when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like query_search_analytics for performance data.

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