check_url_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the returned data points and the site_url fallback to the GSC_SITE_URL environment variable. It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements or behavior when the URL is outside the property.

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 yes/no answer and returned-signal list are front-loaded, and the compact Args block avoids repetition. Every line earns its place; only minor gain from tightening 'Full URL to check'.

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 0 required params, an output schema present, and only two inputs, the description supplies enough to invoke correctly: property scoping, env-var default, and what comes back. Remaining gaps (auth prerequisites, mismatch behavior) are modest for a read-only check.

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 carry both parameters — it does explain site_url as the exact property with an env-var default, and page_url as the full URL. However, 'Full URL to check' gives no format details (scheme, whether it must belong to the property), leaving a gap on the more important parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('is this URL indexed?') and enumerates the returned signals (coverage state, last crawl, canonical, robots/fetch status). The 'Quick yes/no' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the heavier inspect_url_enhanced and batch_url_inspection siblings, but never names them.

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?

'Quick yes/no' implies this is the lightweight check versus a full inspection, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for bulk checks or deep inspection.

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