gsc_inspect_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two key behaviors: each URL is a separate API call with a real per-minute quota, and failures on one URL do not stop the rest (reported inline). This gives the agent essential runtime expectations. It does not mention authentication or potential side effects, but the tool appears read-only and the description covers the most impactful behaviors.

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?

Three concise sentences pack a clear purpose, usage guidance, a practical limit, and partial-failure behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the core action is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is handled elsewhere. The description covers usage, quota, and error handling well, but leaves parameter semantics unexplained. For a 3-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description should at least clarify the optional parameters. It is not fully complete for an agent to call it optimally without guessing about site_url and language_code.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at the page_urls parameter by saying 'several URLs,' but gives no detail on site_url or language_code. Without schema descriptions, an agent cannot know what site_url is for (e.g., which Search Console property) or what language_code influences. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Inspect several URLs and return a compact per-URL verdict table.' It clearly distinguishes this batch tool from its sibling gsc_inspect_url by emphasizing 'several URLs' and the batch use case. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly recommends using it 'after a deploy or a migration' and provides a practical constraint (keep under 20 due to per-URL API calls and quota). It does not explicitly name the alternative singular tool, but the 'several' vs 'batch' framing implies that for a single URL you would use the singular sibling. This is clear but could be more explicit.

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