google-search-console-mcp

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable behavioral context about what specifically gets inspected (indexing status, mobile usability, rich results) but omits rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions (e.g., unverified site 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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, while the second clarifies the specific capability regarding crawl/index status. Every word earns its place.

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 good annotations and complete schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. While it lacks an output schema, it describes what information is revealed (indexing, mobile usability, rich results), which is sufficient for agent selection, though explicit return structure details would improve it further.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters (account, siteUrl, inspectionUrl). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 uses specific verbs ('Inspect', 'check', 'Shows') and clearly identifies the resource (URL) and scope (indexing status, mobile usability, rich results, crawl/index capability). It effectively distinguishes from analytics-focused siblings like query_search_analytics or compare_performance by focusing on single-URL technical 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?

The description implies usage context (single URL inspection) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus bulk analytics tools like query_search_analytics or get_top_pages. No prerequisites (e.g., site verification requirements) or exclusions are mentioned.

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