Inspect a URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context: the data is Google's cached indexed view, not a live fetch, so results may lag the current page state. It does not disclose quota/rate-limit behavior or that the property must be verified/accessible, leaving some operational context unstated.

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 sentences, no filler: the first front-loads the scope and the returned facets, the second immediately clarifies the data's nature. The dense enumeration is all substantive content rather than padding.

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 read-only, single-URL inspection tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and the key interpretive caveat (indexed view vs live test). An agent can select and call it correctly with no remaining ambiguity.

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%, with url, site_url (including the sc-domain: vs URL-prefix formats and resolution rules) and language_code all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format or interaction, so this is the baseline case where the schema does all the work.

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 verb+resource ('Google's index status for one URL') and enumerates exactly what the response covers: index status, why not indexed, last crawl, canonicals, robots.txt/fetch state, sitemaps, rich results. The 'one URL' scoping implicitly separates it from batch_inspect_urls and audit_indexing, but no sibling is named, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 closing sentence gives a clear usage boundary: this is Google's indexed view rather than a live page test, which tells the agent when this tool is the right data source. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. batch_inspect_urls for multiple URLs) or stating prerequisites such as a verified property in list_sites.

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