gsc_inspect_url

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context about rate limits and the scope of returned data (everything the Inspect URL panel shows), without contradicting 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 concise (6 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states the verb+resource, then lists outputs, use cases, and rate limit. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 rich annotations and output schema presence, the description covers the main behavioral traits (rate limits, scope) and use cases. It could mention the output format (returns markdown or JSON), but the usage context is sufficiently complete for a diagnostic 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?

The input schema includes descriptions for all parameters (site_url, inspection_url, language_code, response_format), so schema coverage is high. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, meeting 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 clearly states the tool runs the URL Inspection API for a specific page and enumerates what it returns (indexing verdict, coverage state, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools that focus on queries or pages, making its purpose distinct.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: diagnose ranking issues, confirm indexing after publish, spot canonical mismatches. Also mentions rate limit (~2000 calls per day) and hints at a future bulk tool, giving guidance on when not to use it.

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