Inspect a URL's index status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds operational context beyond annotations: the per-property daily and per-minute query quota and the warning about quota exhaustion in loops. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the primary output listed first and usage/quota guidance following. Minor redundancy: 'Read-only.' repeats the readOnlyHint annotation, so not every token adds new 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?

With no output schema present, the description enumerates the key returned categories and clearly scopes the tool to a single URL. Combined with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, this is nearly complete; it just doesn't detail response types or error conditions, though those are less critical for a read-only inspection 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 all parameter meanings are already documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema; therefore 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns Google's index status for a single URL,' then enumerates the exact verdict categories returned (coverage, crawl time, canonical, mobile usability, rich results). It also distinguishes itself from gsc_search_analytics_query by making the per-URL vs aggregate split explicit.

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?

Explicitly tells agents when to use it ('inspect specific URLs the user asked about') and when not to ('do not loop this over a list of URLs'). It names the preferred alternative for aggregate queries and warns about quota limits before looping.

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