Inspect a single URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the result includes, such as 'index status', 'canonical Google selected', 'crawl details', and 'mobile usability'. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and resource ('Returns the full URL Inspection result for one page') and then efficiently lists the included result categories. No wasted words.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the main result categories an agent should expect. It does not cover error conditions or authentication nuances, but for a read-only inspection tool with only two well-documented parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond mentioning a single 'page', but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Returns'), a specific resource ('URL Inspection result for one page'), and enumerates the result categories (index status, canonical, crawl details, mobile usability, rich results). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_analytics or list_sitemaps, which operate on different resources.

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 clearly implies this is for inspecting a single URL, which gives context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'one page' scope is sufficient directional guidance.

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