gsc_url_inspection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific return fields (crawl date, indexing verdict, canonical URL, rich results eligibility, mobile usability status), which are behavioral traits beyond the input schema. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or auth requirements, which are minor gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every clause adds value (listing return fields), with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return fields. It covers the main purpose and outputs. Missing are error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., required GSC access), but for a simple inspection tool, this is adequate.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('url' and 'site_url'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool as inspecting a URL's indexing status in Google Search Console, with a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource. It lists key outputs (crawl date, indexing verdict, canonical URL, rich results eligibility, mobile usability), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bing_url_inspection (for Bing) and other GSC tools (e.g., gsc_search_performance for aggregated data).

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 implies the tool is used for inspecting individual URLs' indexing status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., for debugging indexing issues) versus alternatives (e.g., bulk inspection not available). No exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites (e.g., property access) is provided.

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