search_console_url_inspection_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior ('Read-only; no re-indexing is triggered') and adds rate limit detail (~2000 URLs per property per day). It also describes the exact return envelope, including optional fields, which is essential operational context.

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 dense but well-organized; each sentence serves a distinct purpose (result format, safety, rate limit, use-case, alternatives). The return-envelope detail is lengthy but necessary given no output schema.

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 no-output-schema tool, the description fully accounts for return structure, optional fields, read-only behavior, and rate limits. It also situates the tool relative to sibling Search Console tools, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters at 100%, including property syntax for site_url and cross-property rejection for inspection_url. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Inspect') and identifies the exact resource ('a single URL's indexing state') and API. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools for site-wide coverage and performance metrics.

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?

States when to use ('Use this to debug why a specific page isn't ranking') and explicitly lists alternatives: search_console_sitemaps_list for site-wide coverage and search_console_analytics_query for performance metrics. Also flags the daily rate limit, giving practical usage constraints.

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