gsc_inspect_url

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the burden. It reveals that this is a read-only inspection tool (no mention of mutation) and adds critical context: the permission requirement, the 403 error for Restricted users, and the quota limits. However, it does not describe the return format or error handling beyond the 403.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a permission note, an Args list (with brief parameter explanations), and a quota note. Every sentence carries value, and the most important information (purpose and permission) is 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 tool's complexity (metrics-rich output) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably documents return fields), the description covers the essential operational aspects: permissions, parameter meaning, and quota limits. It does not explain the output schema, but that's expected when an output schema exists. Minor gap: no mention of error handling beyond 403.

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 schema provides only names, types, and defaults with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for all parameters: page_url is 'the exact URL', site_url is 'the property that owns the URL' (which is essential context), and language_code is for 'returned messages'. This is a baseline 3 because the description compensates but doesn't add deep detail.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') with a clear resource ('one URL') and enumerates the exact inspection outputs (indexing, canonical, last crawl, robots, mobile usability, rich results). It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling 'gsc_inspect_urls' (plural), which likely handles bulk inspection.

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?

It explicitly states the permission requirement ('Full or Owner permission') and notes that Restricted users get 403, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also mentions a quota warning ('2000 inspections per property per day') and advises against looping it over a whole sitemap, which helps avoid misuse.

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