inspect_urls

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely non-structured information: the quota of ~2,000 inspections/day and 600/min per property, plus the fact that it will read the live sitemap. It stops short of describing failure behavior for unreachable or non-indexable URLs.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core behavior first and the operational quota second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns; 'summarises how many are indexed' hints at a count but does not say whether per-URL results are returned or how partial failures are reported. Combined with 4 parameters and no usage guidance, the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'given, or read from the live sitemap' restates the urls/fromSitemap relationship that the schema already documents, and it says nothing about the limit parameter or the 100-item cap.

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 and resource ('inspects many URLs'), the two input sources (given URLs or live sitemap), and the output intent ('summarises how many are indexed'). The plural 'many URLs' implicitly separates it from the singular sibling inspect_url, but it never names that sibling, so the distinction is left to inference.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. An agent must infer from the word 'many' that inspect_url handles the single-URL case, and nothing indicates whether this is preferred over check_sitemap for bulk index checks.

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