gsc_health_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful safety context by stating that the tool verifies read-only authentication and does not expose tokens. It could further clarify failure behavior or whether live network calls are made, but the key safety traits are disclosed.

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 dense sentence delivers the action, scope, and a safety caveat without any filler. The key purpose is front-loaded and every clause contributes meaning.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers its main purpose and safety behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the return shape or success/failure indicators are not described, leaving some inference required.

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 only parameter, siteUrl, is already fully documented in the schema, including the GSC_SITE_URL fallback. The description's mention of 'configured default site' echoes that fallback but adds no new format or usage detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 the specific verb 'Verify' and names concrete resources: read-only authentication, visible properties, configured default site, and permission levels. This clearly differentiates it from sibling data-query or sitemap tools and makes the tool's diagnostic scope obvious.

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 a health-check/diagnostic use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like gsc_list_sites or gsc_get_site. It gives clear context but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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