Check a URL on Google

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds substantive behavior on top: the per-site live-check quota, that indexed is null rather than false when never inspected, and that a refused live check degrades to stored state with a warning. Quota and graceful-degradation details are exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then the three return components and the live/fallback caveats follow in a tight block with no filler. The first sentence is long and colon-chained, which costs a little readability, but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does: index status, stored inspection timing, open-request ETA, live result, null-when-unknown, and the warning path. For a 2-parameter read tool this leaves nothing an agent needs missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description still adds meaning: live means 'ask Google now' and carries a concrete quota cost, and the null semantics of the indexed result are clarified. The url parameter itself is only restated, but the live flag's tradeoff is genuinely enriched.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — whether a URL of the user's site is indexed on Google and as of when — and enumerates what is returned (stored inspection, open request ETA, optional live check). It is not tautological and an agent can tell it apart from list_pages or get_indexing_request, though it never names those siblings 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 largely implied: the agent infers you call this to learn a URL's index status, and the description explains the live flag costs 1 of 50 daily checks, which is a real decision cue. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_indexing_request or list_pages, and gives no prerequisites about the URL needing to belong to a Search Console property.

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