inspect_url

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

No annotations provided, so description discloses read-only nature, reports various data, and tight per-property quotas. It does not cover error handling or rate limits explicitly, but the quota warning adds useful transparency.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by reported data, a quota note, and parameter definitions. Every sentence serves a purpose 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?

Despite no output schema, description covers main behavioral aspects and parameter details. However, it lacks information on return format, error scenarios, or interpretation of results, limiting completeness for a 3-param 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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds value by providing an example for site_url, describing inspection_url as fully-qualified, and noting language_code default. This goes beyond schema's basic type info.

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 index status via the URL Inspection API, listing specific data points (index coverage, last crawl, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_sitemap or search_analytics.

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 status but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it. The quota mention provides context, but guidance is indirect.

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