Inspect a URL in the index

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important operational behavior: the rough quota, that results describe the indexed version only, that it cannot run the live test offered in the UI, and that the inspected URL must belong to the property. It also tells the agent which field to read first when diagnosing.

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?

Four sentences, all information-dense and free of filler. The most distinguishing information is front-loaded, followed by the use case, quota caveat, and limitation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the critical return field (indexStatusResult.coverageState), gives example values, lists the categories of results, and covers quota, scoping, and the live-test limitation. This is sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly 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 100%, so the baseline applies: the schema already documents siteUrl, inspectionUrl, and languageCode. The description adds one useful constraint ('The URL must belong to the property being inspected') but does not significantly extend parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect one URL as Google sees it,' and enumerates the concrete result areas (coverage state, robots.txt, crawl time, canonicals, sitemaps, AMP, mobile usability, rich results). The phrase 'one URL' distinguishes it from the sibling inspect_urls without needing to open the schema.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'This is the tool for "why is this page not indexed" questions,' and adds quota-based sampling guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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