Inspect URL

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

Annotations already carry read-only/non-destructive safety, and the description adds the daily 2,000-inspection quota plus a strong evidence-handling policy (report only returned data, no speculation, admit insufficient data). This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not disclose error/response edge cases.

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 dense and well-ordered: purpose, returned data, quota, then an important caveat. It is slightly verbose due to the repeated guidance in the IMPORTANT sentence, but every part is relevant.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the returned data fields and adds the quota and non-speculation rules. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though error/empty-response behavior is not covered.

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%, and the schema already documents all three parameters including the siteUrl fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') on a specific resource ('a single URL in Google Search Console') and lists concrete returned data (index status, mobile usability, rich results, AMP status, canonical, last crawl time). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like batch_inspect_urls and 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 establishes clear scope—single URL inspection and the exact diagnostics returned—so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, though the 'single URL' wording plus the sibling list makes the batch alternative obvious.

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