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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the asynchronous nature (returns immediately with job ID), polling requirement, credit consumption per URL, and rollback for failed URLs. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, which align well.

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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, workflow, and credit/rollback behavior.

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 the complexity (14 parameters, 1 required), the description competently covers purpose, polling workflow, credit implications, and failure behavior. No output schema is present, but the description correctly indicates the return type (job ID) without needing to specify the full response format.

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 100%, so the schema already provides parameter details. The description adds context that all URLs share the same options, but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool creates a batch screenshot job for multiple URLs (1-50) and returns immediately with a job ID, distinguishing it from the sibling tools like 'take_screenshot' (single URL) and 'get_batch_status' (polling).

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 explicitly provides context on when to use this tool (multiple URLs, polling with get_batch_status, wait 2-5 seconds between polls) and mentions credit consumption and rollback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or discuss alternative tools beyond polling.

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