Inspect URL in Search Console

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. It adds useful context about what the inspection returns and the required relationship between site_url and inspection_url, though it does not mention API quotas or edge-case failure modes.

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 front-loaded with a single-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args block and Use/Don't-use guidance. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information with minimal redundancy.

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 four-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description provides the purpose, parameter meanings, expected result dimensions, and sibling routing. Even without an output schema, the response content is summarized well enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result.

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 0%, but the Args section compensates by explaining each parameter: connection must be configured, site_url comes from gsc_list_sites, inspection_url must belong to site_url, and response_format has a default. It could add a concrete URL example or error conditions, but the core semantics are present.

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 states a concrete verb and resource — 'Check a single URL's Google index status' — and lists the diagnostic outputs (indexed, last crawled, why not indexed). It also contrasts with gsc_query_search_analytics, making it easy for an agent to distinguish this tool from its siblings.

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?

It gives explicit triggers ('Why isn't this page showing up in Google?', 'Is this URL indexed?') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool to use instead. This is clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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