inspection_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Inspect' suggests a read operation, but it doesn't state that explicitly, nor does it mention response format, rate limits, or behavior for invalid URLs. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action verb.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. No redundant words or filler. The key constraints (single/batch, engines) are included efficiently.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or any important caveats. It doesn't mention the default engine behavior (all), batch size limits, or what the inspection output looks like, leaving a significant gap for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by referencing 'single or batch URLs' (matching urls array) and 'Google or Bing' (matching engine enum), which reinforces the schema but doesn't add new syntax or format details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and names the resource (indexing, canonical, crawl status) and scope (single/batch URLs on Google/Bing). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analytics_query or indexing_submit, though indexing_status overlaps somewhat.

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 when to use it (inspecting URL status across engines), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It mentions batch and engine options, but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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