inspect_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well on two fronts: it discloses the return shape (index status, coverage, canonical, last crawl, mobile usability) and a real operational limit (Google's 2,000/day per-property quota). It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or that the target URL must belong to the supplied verified property, both of which affect whether a call succeeds.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, then return shape, then cost. Every sentence adds information. Structure is slightly fragmented by line breaks but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain returns, yet it summarizes them usefully and adds the quota cost. For a two-required-parameter read operation with no annotations, that covers most of what an agent needs; the remaining gap is permission/verification prerequisites.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'One URL inside one property' does map the two unnamed parameters to concepts (url = the inspected URL, site_url = the containing property), but it gives no format guidance, e.g. whether site_url must be a URL-prefix or sc-domain property identifier. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource and adds real scope: 'Run URL Inspection for one URL inside one property.' The one-URL/one-property constraint cleanly separates it from siblings like list_sites, list_sitemaps, and search_analytics, which operate at property or site level. It only lacks an explicit naming of those alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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 context is implied rather than stated: a single-URL scope and a per-property daily quota hint at high-cost, targeted use, and the quota warning is a genuine invocation consideration. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing and no reference to the sibling tools, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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