inspect_url_enhanced

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists the output fields (verdict, coverage state, etc.) and implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or the exact response format.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently enumerates the key output aspects. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary details.

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 that no annotations are provided, the description provides a solid overview of the output contents. It lists the specific data points returned, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's functionality. It could mention the response envelope or error handling, but the core purpose is well covered.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it does not enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing detailed crawl and index status for a single URL, listing specific aspects like verdict, coverage state, robots.txt, canonicals, last crawl time, rich results, and mobile usability. It distinguishes itself from batch inspection tools by explicitly mentioning 'one URL'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like batch_url_inspection or check_indexing_issues. It implies a single-URL use case but lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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