inspect_url_enhanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool inspects indexing status and rich results, but does not specify behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication needs. The output schema exists, which helps, but the description lacks explicit safety or side-effect disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter details are structured clearly in Args. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier reading.

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 tool has an output schema (so return values are documented), the description adequately covers the 3 parameters (2 required). It provides necessary context about site_url and subdomain handling, making it complete for an agent to use 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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the site_url format and usage in detail, including domain property coverage. The page_url is briefly described, and language_code is explained as optional IETF BCP-47. This adds significant 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 clearly states the tool inspects a URL for indexing status and rich results. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('URL') with a clear purpose ('check indexing status and rich results'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_url_inspection and check_indexing_issues by being single-URL and enhanced.

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 detailed guidance on the site_url parameter, including the format and how to handle domain vs. subdomain properties. It also mentions the optional language_code parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like batch_url_inspection, though the context is implied.

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