gsc_bulk_inspect_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does useful work: it reveals the 2000 requests/day/property quota, the sequential processing approach, and that results are normalized. It does not cover failure behavior or permissions, but the schema's continueOnError field handles error behavior.

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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and the quota immediately stated. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The description covers quota and sequential processing, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, 'normalized URL Inspection results' is vague, and the description never explicitly explains per-URL error output or the single-URL alternative. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, with each parameter already documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the appropriate baseline is 3.

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 and resource ('Inspect multiple URLs') and signals bulk behavior, which distinguishes it from the single-URL sibling gsc_inspect_url. It does not explicitly name that alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 provides operational context such as the conservative sequential limit and daily quota, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over gsc_inspect_url or when not to use it. The batch use case is implied by the name and 'multiple URLs' rather than made explicit.

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