Inspect URL

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful detail on what is inspected (canonical, rich results), but says nothing about rate limits, quota, latency, or whether the inspection is live versus cached.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It loses a point only because the leading 'URL Inspection' restates the tool name and title rather than adding information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (index status, coverage, last crawl, canonical, rich results), which is exactly what compensates for the missing output contract. Only minor gaps remain: no note on response timing or what happens if the URL is outside the property.

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 100%: the schema already explains that 'url' must be fully-qualified and belongs to the property, and that 'siteUrl' accepts either 'sc-domain:' or URL-prefix format. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('URL Inspection') plus the exact data categories it surfaces (index status, coverage, last crawl, canonical, rich results). The qualifier 'for one URL in the property' separates it from the aggregate siblings like gsc_search_analytics and gsc_performance_summary, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the single-URL scope: an agent can infer this is for checking one page rather than a site-wide rollup. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to an alternative for property-wide questions.

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