inspect_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the property-bound URL requirement and specific quota limits (2000/day, 600/minute). It doesn't describe failure modes or how a non-indexed URL is returned, but given annotation coverage the added context is strong.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the core behavior and return fields, the second adds use-case and constraints. There is no repetitive or filler content; every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, selection criteria, property constraint, and rate limits, which is nearly everything an agent needs to call correctly. Since there is no output schema, the description summarizes return fields at a semantic level but does not describe the exact response shape or error conditions, leaving a small 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (url, site, account, language_code) are already documented. The description only restates the 'under the property' constraint from the schema and adds no new type or format details, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 action (ask Google about one URL) and enumerates the exact data returned: indexed status, sitemap, canonical comparison, last crawl, mobile usability, rich results, AMP. Names the target use-case ('why is this page not showing up') and, by focusing on 'one URL', distinguishes itself from the plural sibling inspect_urls.

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?

Gives a clear diagnostic use-case and a practical constraint: inspect only pages that matter because of daily/minute quotas. It says the URL must sit under the property, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for aggregate analysis, but the context is sufficient.

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