Inspect a URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: this reads cached index state rather than triggering a live crawl or indexing, which is the key behavioral distinction an agent needs. It omits rate/quota behavior, which is notable for this API.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the clarifying exclusion. No filler, no repetition of the title's wording.

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 should indicate what inspection results contain (index status, coverage state, crawl info) and any quota constraints, but it says nothing about the response shape. Combined with the undocumented languageCode parameter, this leaves clear gaps for a tool an agent must interpret results from.

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 coverage is 67%: siteUrl and inspectionUrl are documented in the schema, while languageCode carries only a pattern with no explanation. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it relies entirely on structured fields; baseline 3 is appropriate for this moderate coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspecting the index-known version of a URL, plus a useful negative ('not a live test or indexing request'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools (sites, sitemaps, search analytics), though no sibling performs a comparable action, so explicit differentiation has no target.

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?

It tells the agent when NOT to use it ('does not run a live test or request indexing'), which prevents a common misuse of this tool for indexing requests. It does not name an alternative or state prerequisites such as property access, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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