Search Console: URL prüfen

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the URL Inspection API, the inspected fields, and the requirement that the service account needs full access in the property. It does not describe quota/rate-limit behavior, but the auth and return-scope disclosure is valuable.

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 two front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. It first states the action and inspected result dimensions, then states the access prerequisite.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the main returned inspection fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. It includes the important auth prerequisite, though it could say more about error cases or quota constraints for a live URL Inspection API call.

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 schema already documents url, sprache, and property in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format guidance beyond implying a single URL and referencing property access, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Prüft eine einzelne URL über die URL Inspection API' and lists inspected aspects. It implicitly distinguishes this single-URL inspection from sibling list/report tools, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'eine einzelne URL' and the URL Inspection API context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives among siblings such as gsc_suchanfragen or gsc_seiten. The access prerequisite is stated, but not routing guidance.

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