Inspect Url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what the tool reports on (indexing, mobile usability, rich results, AMP), which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering a live test or URL fetch), rate limits, or that it may require special permissions, which would be useful for a tool that likely performs external fetches.

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, short sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the inspection categories. It is concise with no filler, though it could benefit from a second sentence clarifying usage context. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 presence of an output schema likely covers return values, and the description lists the main inspection categories, which is enough for a typical inspection tool. However, given that this tool probably triggers a live inspection, it would be complete to mention that it performs a live check and may take time. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters accurately (url and site_url) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format expectations or that url must be a valid page within the site. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: to inspect a single URL for indexing status, mobile usability, rich results, and AMP. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and a specific resource ('URL'), and the list of inspection areas distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on analytics or site management. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from a close sibling like batch_url_inspection, which also inspects URLs.

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 it is for inspecting a single URL, and from the sibling list an agent can infer it should be used when a single URL needs inspection rather than batch operations. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like batch_url_inspection, and it does not state prerequisites such as the property being verified or access being required.

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