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 of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only operation (inspecting a URL) but never explicitly states that it is non-destructive, does not modify state, or has any rate limits or access requirements. It also omits what 'issues Google found' means in practice.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action ('Inspect a URL') and immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not disclose the output format (no output schema provided), nor does it mention any auth or verification requirements. Given no annotations, the description should have noted that this is a read-only operation and what kind of data it returns. It covers the main purpose but leaves operational details to inference.

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 both parameters (siteUrl and inspectionUrl) having clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely summarizes the tool's purpose. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('a URL') and lists three concrete outcomes: indexing status, crawl info, and issues Google found. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (list_sites lists sites, search_analytics reports analytics, list_sitemaps lists sitemaps).

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 vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., site verification in Search Console), nor does it contrast with search_analytics or list_sitemaps. An agent cannot infer the appropriate context from this description alone.

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