gsc_inspect_url

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses quota limits (2,000 calls/day/property), caching behavior (1 hour), and input validation constraints. This is meaningful behavioral context that materially affects when and how an agent should call the tool.

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 compact sentences front-load the tool's purpose and output, then provide constraints and quota/caching context. No filler or redundant restating of schema fields.

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 description is largely complete given the output schema and annotations: it covers input constraints, expected output categories, rate limits, and caching. The main small gap is the undocumented site_url parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 must compensate. It explains that inspection_url must be a full URL belonging to site_url, but it leaves site_url's format, meaning, and optional/default behavior ambiguous. Partial compensation, with a clear gap on the site_url parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Inspect one URL's index status in Google') and enumerates the exact verdicts returned. This clearly distinguishes it from aggregate tools like gsc_search_analytics or sitemap tools.

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 provides clear usage context by warning that this tool has the tightest quota in the set and that results are cached, signaling it should be used judiciously. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but context is sufficient.

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