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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 25-seller/25-website cap and a cost advantage, which is real behavioral content. But it omits what 'check' actually evaluates, permission/auth requirements, behavior when the cap is exceeded, and the response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the batching scope and cost hint are both useful. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-array tool, though slightly terse given the undocumented parameter formats.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the main source of context. It covers scope and limits but leaves out what a 'check' returns and the item format, which an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% for the two array parameters. The description names 'sellers' and 'websites' and their 25-item limits, partially mapping to the schema, but says nothing about the expected string format (IDs, domains, names) for array items.

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 ('check') and resources ('sellers and websites') plus the batching scope ('in one call'), which clearly separates it from the single-target check_seller/check_website siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 parenthetical '(cheapest for many checks)' implies you should use this batch tool when performing many checks instead of the single-item siblings. However, it never names the alternatives, states when NOT to use it, or clarifies what 'many' means beyond the 25-per-type cap.

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