gsc_inspect_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-field details (indexStatusResult, mobileUsabilityResult, richResultsResult) but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or edge cases, so it does not exceed the annotation baseline significantly.

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 logically structured with an intro, API note, Args, and Returns sections. It is slightly redundant by repeating 'indexation status' and 'crawl info' in the first two sentences, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, the description goes beyond by summarizing what the returned JSON contains. The tool has nested parameters, but the schema covers the structure. The description is complete for normal use, though it omits authentication and prerequisite details, which are likely out of scope.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (site_url and inspection_url), including examples. The tool description simplifies these but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 inspects a URL's indexation status, crawl info, and rich results. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('URL'), and is distinct from siblings like search analytics or sitemap tools.

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 usage for checking a single URL's performance in GSC, which is distinct from listing sites or sitemaps. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide tool selection.

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