Inspect Url Tool

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the categories of information returned, but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints beyond what the annotation and output schema provide.

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 concise sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently summarizes the return content.

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?

Given the read-only annotation, complete schema descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain around explicit sibling selection, but the description covers what the tool does and what it returns.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb (inspect) and resource (a URL's index status in Google Search), clearly distinguishing this URL-level indexing tool from sibling site, sitemap, and analytics 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this to inspect a URL's index status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like query_search_analytics_tool or what conditions would make it inappropriate.

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