gsc_url_inspection

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It identifies the operation as an inspection, which implies a read-only action, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, rate limits, or response characteristics. The description is not misleading but lacks explicit transparency about side effects or constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the core action and scope. It is efficiently concise with no wasted words, earning its place in the limited space.

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 is incomplete for an effective tool definition. It lacks any explanation of the return value (e.g., what index statuses are possible), does not clarify the meaning of siteUrl and languageCode, and provides no contextual guidance on prerequisites like GSC property access. With no output schema and sparse annotations, this leaves agents without critical information to use the tool correctly.

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 only 33% (only siteUrl has a description). The tool description adds minimal value: it implies inspectionUrl is the target URL, but does not clarify the role of siteUrl or languageCode. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more substantially, but it does not.

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 a specific verb ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('Google index status'), and the scope ('for a URL under a GSC property'). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on analytics or reporting, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for checking index status but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., which other tools to use for similar URL checks). Sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics or gsc_top_pages are not referenced, leaving the selection criteria unstated.

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