gsc_inspect_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. The verb 'Inspect' implies read-only behavior and the quota line adds rate-limit context, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no mutations, what response shape to expect, or any error/latency characteristics.

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 zero filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the quota constraint is isolated as a separate, easily digestible sentence.

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 lists the inspection dimensions and quota, and the schema covers all parameters, which is adequate for a straightforward inspection tool. But with no output schema and no usage guidance, the description leaves an agent to infer the response format and when to prefer this over the bulk sibling. A more complete description would state that results return per-category status findings.

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 parameters are already documented in the structured data. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not conflict or add detail.

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 ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('a URL') and enumerates the inspected facets: indexing status, crawl info, mobile usability, AMP, and rich results. It does not explicitly differentiate from gsc_bulk_inspect_urls, but the singular focus is evident from the name and description.

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 explains when to choose this tool over alternatives. The presence of gsc_bulk_inspect_urls as a sibling implies a singular-vs-bulk distinction, but the description never states this. The quota mention is operational context, not usage direction.

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