inspect_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds what content the inspection returns, which is useful, but says nothing about quotas (note the sibling inspection_quota), permissions, or latency that would materially affect invocation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the facet list is compact and informative. It is a noun phrase rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a two-required-param tool with zero schema descriptions, the missing explanation of site_url vs page_url leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description explains none of the three parameters. The critical distinction between site_url (the property) and page_url (the page being inspected) is left entirely unexplained, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent needs resolved for URL Inspection tools.

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 (inspect a URL) and enumerates the inspection facets covered (index verdict, crawl, canonical, robots, sitemaps, rich results, mobile). The phrase 'for one page' implicitly separates it from the sibling inspect_urls, but does not name that sibling 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: 'for one page' hints that batch inspection belongs to inspect_urls, but the description never states when to prefer this over the sibling or any prerequisites (e.g., property ownership/verification). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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