url_inspection_inspect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states that the tool returns current API results and notes that the deprecated mobileUsabilityResult field may be absent, but it omits permission requirements, rate limits, and whether the operation is strictly read-only. Some behavioral context is provided, but key operational constraints are missing.

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 front-loaded and concise: it states the core action, summarizes return contents, and adds a useful deprecation note in three short sentences. Every sentence adds value without repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity read tool with complete parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lists the main return categories and warns about a deprecated field, though it could additionally mention authentication or property verification requirements. The missing pieces are minor 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the three parameters fully. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, syntax, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, such as the relationship between siteUrl and inspectionUrl. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a URL in Google's index.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like indexing_publish, sitemaps_submit, and search_analytics_query, which perform different actions. An agent can identify the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it vs alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention that the URL must belong to a verified site property or when inspection is preferable to other indexing tools. Usage is only implicitly suggested by the purpose statement.

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