gsc_inspect_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that the tool returns Google's indexed version, not a live test, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 very concise: two short sentences that immediately state the tool's purpose and a key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous content.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers its core purpose and non-live nature. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, does not elaborate on parameters, and provides no information about the response format. Annotations mitigate some gaps, but completeness is minimal.

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 does not explain any parameters. The input schema describes only siteUrl (33% coverage), leaving languageCode and inspectionUrl without descriptions. Since schema coverage is low and the description fails to compensate, parameter semantics are weak.

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 a specific verb 'Inspect' and resource 'Google's indexed version of a URL', clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes from a live URL test, though it does not differentiate from the sibling tool gsc_bulk_inspect_urls, which is a related alternative.

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 statement 'This is not a live URL test' provides a negative usage hint, telling users when not to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives like gsc_bulk_inspect_urls, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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