Inspect URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by enumerating the returned diagnostic fields (coverage, canonical, crawl date), but says nothing about auth requirements or the query quota that URL Inspection enforces.

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 a colon-delimited list of what is returned. Zero filler and appropriately sized for a focused read tool.

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 carries the return-value burden and does name the key result areas. However, it omits when to prefer it over bulk_inspect or audit_page and gives no hint of latency or quota constraints for a live index query.

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 67%: url and siteUrl are documented well (siteUrl even cross-references list_sites and gives examples), while languageCode is undocumented. The description adds no parameter detail, so the schema does most of the work — baseline 3.

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 names the specific resource (a URL) and the exact data returned: index coverage, canonical, last crawl, mobile usability, rich results. It is far more precise than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as audit_page or bulk_inspect.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided and no alternatives are named. With siblings like bulk_inspect (multi-URL) and audit_page, the agent must infer that this single-URL tool applies here; nothing in the text routes it explicitly.

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