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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the job runs in the background and returns a batch id immediately rather than results. The per-URL credit cost is a valuable disclosure the annotations don't provide; rate limits or failure behavior are not covered.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core action and async nature are front-loaded, followed by the follow-up tool and cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (batch id), the follow-up mechanism (batch_status), the execution model (background job), and the cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and there is only one parameter, whose description already says 'The URLs to scrape.' The description adds no syntax, format, or limit detail (e.g. the 25,000 max), so it neither compensates nor misleads — baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 ('Scrape a list of URLs') plus the distinguishing scope ('you already have', 'as one background job'), which separates it from single-URL scrape and discovery-oriented crawl. An agent can pick it out without opening the schema.

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 'URLs you already have' implicitly excludes URL-discovery cases, and it explicitly routes the caller to batch_status for progress and results. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. crawl) for the discovery case, so it's clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing statement.

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