inspect_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing what is examined (coverage, mobile usability, rich-result verdicts) and that failure detail is included. It stops short of noting auth requirements or any inspection latency, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what is inspected, when to use it, and which siblings cover adjacent cases. No redundancy and the scope statement is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description describes the returned verdict categories and issue detail, so an agent knows what to expect. Purpose, trigger, and sibling routing are all present for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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 only two parameters (siteUrl, url), and the schema already explains the exact siteUrl format and that url must be fully qualified. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (inspect) and a tightly scoped resource (one URL in the Google Search Console index) and enumerates exactly what verdicts are returned. It is immediately distinguishable from batch_inspect_urls and check_indexing_issues by scope.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks why a single URL is missing from search or looks wrong') and names both alternatives with the conditions that select them: batch_inspect_urls for a list, check_indexing_issues for auditing top traffic pages.

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