gsc_plan_large_site_sampling

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

The description explicitly discloses the operation as 'read-only', which is valuable given no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention other behavioral traits such as whether it queries live GSC data, whether it mutates any state, or what kind of output the plan contains.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core action, resource, and input signals efficiently.

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?

Given 9 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent would struggle to know what objectives, date presets, or sampling limits to configure or what the resulting plan looks like.

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 only 11%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not mention siteUrl, dateRange, pageLimit, objectives, or any other parameter. The reference to 'sitemap risk signals and Search Analytics page performance' provides only high-level conceptual context, not actionable parameter meaning.

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 states a clear action ('Build'), a specific resource ('a read-only URL Inspection sampling plan'), and the target context ('for large sites'). It also names source signals ('sitemap risk signals and Search Analytics page performance'), which helps distinguish it from simple inspection tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 says the plan is 'for large sites', which implies a scale-based use case, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like gsc_bulk_inspect_urls. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing conditions.

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