inspect_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: results reflect Google's index, not a live fetch, which tells the agent the answer may be stale. It stops short of permissions, quota costs, or what an inconclusive result looks like.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the disambiguating parenthetical placed where it reads naturally. Nothing is padded, though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With two required, undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what the status response contains (indexed / not indexed / excluded with reason), the definition is too thin for a tool whose output shape the agent must interpret. The index-vs-live distinction is the only substantive detail provided.

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 carries the full burden for two required parameters, and it says nothing about either. It is unclear whether `site` is a domain property, a URL-prefix property, or a verified Search Console site, nor whether `url` must belong to that site.

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?

"Inspect Google indexed URL status" gives a specific verb (inspect) and a specific resource (a URL's indexed status in Google), and the parenthetical distinguishes it from a live crawl/fetch. It is clearly not one of the analytics-reporting siblings, though it does not name which sibling covers the live-test 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 phrase "(not a live test)" implies the right context: use this when you want Google's cached index verdict rather than fetching the page yourself. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. the site must be verified in Search Console), and no named alternative among the siblings.

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