inspect_url_enhanced

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful defaults such as site_url falling back to GSC_SITE_URL and include_raw returning Google's raw response, but does not cover permissions, rate limits, or pagination.

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 front-loads the tool scope in one sentence and then gives a compact Args block with no filler. It is dense but appropriately sized for a multi-facet inspection tool.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety behavior, the description supplies enough parameter semantics and scope for correct invocation. The main remaining gap is routing guidance versus similar sibling tools, so it is not completely self-contained.

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%, but the description documents all four parameters: site_url as exact property with a default, page_url as the full URL that must belong to the property, language_code as optional with an example, and include_raw with its default. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates inspected facets, making the scope clearer than a generic URL status check. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as check_url_status, batch_url_inspection, or get_index_coverage, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

No sentence states when to use this tool instead of check_url_status, batch_url_inspection, get_index_coverage, or get_mobile_issues. The label 'Full URL Inspection' implies comprehensive single-URL use, but comparative routing guidance is absent.

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