inspect_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only inspection operation and clarifies results are live, but it omits operational details such as verification requirements, engine-specific limitations, rate limits, and the exact response shape.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the action, platform scope, and intended checks without filler or repetition. The enumerated list is compact and scannable.

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 the full parameter schema and the description's explicit list of output categories, an agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by naming the checks, though a note on return format or required site verification would make it fully complete.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning to parameters like siteUrl or languageCode; it merely frames the high-level action. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') against a specific resource ('a URL'), names both target platforms, and enumerates concrete checks (indexing status, crawl info, canonical URLs, mobile usability, rich results). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like search_analytics or list_sitemaps.

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 'to check ...' clause defines clear use cases: when an agent needs live indexing, crawl, canonical, mobile, or schema-validation data for a single URL. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose sentence supplies enough context against sibling names.

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