Inspect URL

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the types of checks performed (indexing, coverage, mobile usability) and implies a read-only inspection, but lacks details on response format, potential errors, authentication, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 no output schema, the description lists the key inspection categories (indexing status, coverage issues, mobile usability, and more), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's breadth. It could be more explicit about return data, but the tool's scope is moderate and the description is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (siteUrl, languageCode, inspectionUrl). The description adds little beyond stating 'single URL,' so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Run the Search Console URL Inspection tool' and clearly identifies the resource (a single URL) and the purpose (check indexing status, coverage issues, mobile usability). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with sitemaps and analytics.

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 implies usage for inspecting a single URL, which is clear given sibling tools focus on different tasks (sitemaps, analytics, site listing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full guidelines.

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