inspect_url_enhanced

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions checking indexing status and rich results but does not describe side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens when a URL is not indexed or the property is invalid. The domain-property note is useful but is parameter behavior, not overall tool behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and keeps parameter documentation in a clean list. The domain-property explanation is useful and not redundant, though 'Enhanced' adds little meaning.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely adequate and covers the key inputs well. It lacks guidance on choosing this tool over sibling alternatives and does not mention potential errors or edge cases related to URL inspection, making it only moderately complete.

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 compensate. It does so well for site_url by providing exact property format, examples, and domain-property behavior. page_url receives only a minimal definition ('The specific URL to inspect'), which is clear but less rich than site_url.

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 clearly states a specific action (inspect a URL) and resource (Google Search Console URL), with the purpose of checking indexing status and rich results. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like batch_url_inspection or check_indexing_issues.

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 provides helpful usage context, such as getting the exact site_url from list_properties and guidance for using domain properties with subdomain filtering. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like batch_url_inspection or when not to use it.

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