gsc_inspect_url

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: no live crawl, quota limits (2,000/day/site + 600/min), and permission requirements. It also discloses the flattened response shape and the `_raw` field, going well beyond what annotations convey.

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 well-structured with clear sections: one-line purpose, capability list, behavioral warning, args, quota/auth, and return shape. Information is front-loaded and every section carries necessary information; the only minor redundancy is 'Flattened response' appearing in both the first line and the returns section.

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?

All essential invocation context is present: purpose, parameter semantics, quota, permissions, non-live-crawl behavior, and return structure. With an output schema also available, nothing critical is missing for an agent to call and interpret this tool 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 0%, but the description fully documents each parameter: inspection_url must be fully-qualified and under the property, site_url formats are given ('https://example.com/' or 'sc-domain:example.com'), and language_code is described as IETF BCP-47 with default 'en-US'. This completely compensates for the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a URL in the Google index,' and enumerates the concrete checks (index status, coverage, canonical, crawl info, AMP, rich results). The description is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly compare itself to the sibling gsc_batch_inspect_urls, so its sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Provides a clear use context: it operates on Google's current index snapshot and explicitly warns it does not trigger a live crawl, which helps an agent decide when a live fetch tool would be needed. It also gives auth prerequisites (Full user, Restricted users get 403) and quota numbers. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this single-URL tool over gsc_batch_inspect_urls.

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