inspection_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine external context the annotations lack: the daily quota ceiling (~2,000/day) and the 'today' reset window, which is exactly the behavioral fact an agent needs.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending with the quota context. No filler; every clause carries useful 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema (which handles return values) and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. A brief note on parameter format would close the remaining gap.

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 single site_url parameter is undocumented, so the description must compensate. 'For a property' loosely maps the parameter to a property identifier, but it doesn't clarify the expected URL/identifier format, so this only partially fills the gap.

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 resource (URL inspection quota) and scope (today, per property), which is clearly distinct from the sibling inspect_url/inspect_urls tools that actually perform inspections. The verb is implicit in 'How many...has used' but the intent is unambiguous.

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: the '(Google allows ~2,000/day)' note hints you should check this before bulk inspections, but the description never states when to call it, that it's a pre-flight check, or which sibling it complements.

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