gsc inspect url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a concrete quota (2000 requests/day/property) but does not disclose response behavior, failure cases, or auth requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 with no filler: the first states the action and diagnostic scope clearly, and the second adds quota information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. The only meaningful gap is the missing pointer to gsc_bulk_inspect_urls, but that is already accounted for in usage guidelines.

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 input schema already documents url, siteUrl, and languageCode adequately. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already available in the schema.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb 'Inspect' and a clear object 'URL,' and enumerates diagnostic dimensions: indexing status, crawl info, mobile usability, AMP, and rich results. It is clearly differentiated from unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closely named gsc_bulk_inspect_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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over gsc_bulk_inspect_urls or alternate analysis tools. Usage must be inferred from the singular 'a URL,' and there is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would push the agent toward a sibling.

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