gsc_run_adjacent_technical_diagnostics

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

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses that the tool is auth-free, read-only, never calls external APIs, never writes files, and never mutates state. The term 'sampled adjacent technical diagnostics' is somewhat vague but overall provides a clear safety profile. A small deduction for not clarifying 'sampled' or 'adjacent'.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second elaborates on safety and scope. It is concise and front-loaded with the essential verb and resource. However, it could be structured slightly better with bullet points or clearer separation of purpose and behavior.

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?

Given the complexity of 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the expected output (though an output schema exists), the meaning of 'sampled', or how to set the parameters. The agent would need additional context to use the 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?

The description provides no explanation of the parameters (urls, max_urls, site_url) and the input schema has 0% description coverage. The agent must infer parameter meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool runs 'auth-free, read-only sampled adjacent technical diagnostics for supplied URLs' and elaborates that it only performs property-scoped HTML and robots.txt fetches. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly listing APIs it does not call (Search Console, Indexing API, etc.).

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 context on when to use it (for safe, read-only diagnostics without authentication) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. The reference to 'auth-free' and 'read-only' implies appropriate use cases but lacks explicit guidance.

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