gsc health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful guarantee: 'without exposing tokens.' It also enumerates the exact checks performed, providing behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 concise sentence front-loads the verb and scope, then adds a safety qualifier. Every word contributes value and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, a rich output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is explicit sibling differentiation, which is not critical here.

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 single parameter siteUrl is fully documented in the schema, including its fallback to GSC_SITE_URL. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and names the exact subjects: read-only authentication, visible properties, configured default site, and permission levels. This clearly differentiates it from data-query siblings like gsc_query_search_analytics or gsc_list_sitemaps.

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 use for checking connectivity, permissions, and configuration, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like gsc_list_sites or gsc_get_site, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage context is present but alternatives and exclusions are absent.

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