gsc_inspect_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists what the tool returns (index status, crawl info, etc.) but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects. While it implies non-destructive behavior, it is not explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and output. While concise, it could potentially be even shorter without losing meaning.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It lists several key outputs (index/coverage status, last crawl, canonical, mobile usability), which is adequate for a simple inspection tool. However, it omits error conditions, missing data scenarios, and prerequisites (e.g., site verification).

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 has 50% description coverage (inspectionUrl is described, siteUrl is not). The tool description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. For a 2-parameter tool, the description should at least clarify the role of siteUrl, which it does not.

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: inspecting a single URL for index/coverage status, last crawl, canonical, and mobile usability. It uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource (URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsc_query (search analytics) or gsc_request_indexing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states that it inspects one URL, but does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., gsc_query for aggregated data) would be more appropriate.

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