inspect_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Inspect' conveys a read-only operation and the listed facets clarify the scope, but it does not explicitly state that the URL is not modified or mention access requirements or timing caveats.

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 that lists the tool's scope with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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, both parameters are required and documented, and an output schema exists. The description sufficiently conveys what the tool inspects, but it could be more complete by addressing the rich sibling context and clarifying when not to use this tool.

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 both siteUrl and inspectionUrl are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed at the baseline of 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 ('Inspect'), a concrete resource ('a URL'), and enumerates the inspection facets: Google index status, canonical selection, mobile usability, and rich results. An agent can tell what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from related siblings like index_coverage or pagespeed.

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 this is for per-URL Search Console diagnostics, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or named sibling tools, so the guidance stops at implication.

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