search_console_url_inspection_inspect

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

Discloses read-only nature and that no re-indexing is triggered, plus rate limit. Describes the return envelope in detail. Lacks explicit mention of authentication prerequisites, but the schema description for site_url covers that. With no annotations, the description does a good job of revealing behavioral traits.

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 a single paragraph of ~150 words but all sentences are informative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return structure, constraints, use case, and alternatives. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more concise.

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 single-URL debugging tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return envelope fields, rate limits, authentication context (via schema), and sibling differentiators. It leaves no important gaps for the agent to guess.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by providing example values (e.g., 'https://example.com/' for URL-prefix, 'sc-domain:example.com' for domain) and clarifying the difference between property types, which goes beyond the 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?

Clearly states the tool inspects a single URL's indexing state via the Search Console URL Inspection API, using specific verb 'inspect' and resource 'URL indexing state'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_console_sitemaps_list and search_console_analytics_query by naming them explicitly for alternative use cases.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('debug why a specific page isn't ranking') and when-not-to-use (site-wide coverage or performance metrics), naming specific alternatives. Also includes rate limit context (~2000 per day), helping the agent decide if this tool is appropriate.

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