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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the asynchronous execution, the returned job id, the polling obligation, and the summary-mode payload distinction. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no filler; the core action and async model are front-loaded, and the mode guidance is a meaningful second sentence. Every clause 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?

Covers the essential invocation model: async batch, job id, polling via batch_status, and the main mode decision. The schema handles parameter syntax, though the description could briefly mention default-mode results or result shaping, which is a minor gap for an async tool with no output schema.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter coverage with descriptive enum and field text. The description still adds semantic value by explaining the 'shared options' concept and detailing what summary mode returns (title, description, canonical, contentLength) versus full page content.

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-resource pair ('Scrape many URLs asynchronously') and clearly signals an async job model. The 'many URLs' framing separates it from single-URL siblings like scrape, and the mention of batch_status immediately ties the batch API to its status companion.

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?

Gives a concrete use condition ('For SEO/status audits over many pages set mode 'summary'') and implies batch is for multi-URL workloads while polling is done via batch_status. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use batch, but the async/many-URL framing is enough contextual guidance.

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