Inspect a URL

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: it reports cached Google state rather than a live fetch, and it discloses the exact API budget (2000 calls per property per day, 600 per minute) including the consequence that spending the budget blocks inspection for the rest of the day.

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 dense but every sentence adds value. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the critical live-fetch caveat and then the budget constraints. No filler or redundant restating of the title or schema is present.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the operational semantics, the data source, the budget limits, and the key non-obvious behavior that results may be stale. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret its results appropriately.

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 all three parameters with useful details like the trailing-slash requirement for URL-prefix properties and BCP-47 language codes. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it does not need to because the schema carries the burden.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Asks Google what it knows about one URL' and enumerates the exact inspections performed (indexed state, last crawl, sitemaps, canonical, robots, mobile usability, rich-result problems). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling inspect_urls by emphasizing 'one URL' and from request_indexing by stating it reports indexed state rather than triggering a fetch.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need Google's indexed view of a URL, explicitly noting it is 'not a live fetch.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'indexed state, not a live fetch' caveat conveys the key selection criterion.

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