Search Console: ispezione URL

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the per-property quota of ~2,000 inspections/day, which is a real rate limit an agent must plan around. It also discloses the response contents (canonical chosen by Google, crawl date, rich results), though it omits auth/property-scope requirements and latency.

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, zero waste: the returned-data list is front-loaded and the quota caveat follows. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and flags the quota limit, so an agent knows what it will get and the cost. Only the property-scope/auth assumption (that the URL must belong to the selected Search Console property) is left to the schema.

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% — url, siteUrl and languageCode are each documented in the schema, including the siteUrl fallback behaviour and format examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (canonical/robots.txt refer to output, not input), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource (indexing status of a URL as seen by Google) and enumerates the exact data returned — coverage, last crawl, Google-selected canonical, robots.txt, rich results. This clearly separates it from the list/report siblings (gsc_list_sites, gsc_performance), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only guidance is an implied 'check a URL's indexing state', plus a quota note, which is a constraint rather than usage routing.

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