submit_url_batch

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool consumes URL quota, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits other important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling when quota is exceeded.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is extremely terse. The parameter line appears as a single bullet without further structure. While concise, it could be more organized (e.g., separate sentences for each param).

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 no output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, error details, or quota cost). For a mutation tool, this information is critical. The description also lacks information on prerequisites or integration with sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying that 'url_list' must contain absolute URLs belonging to 'site_url'. This clarifies constraints beyond the raw schema. However, it does not describe the format or validation rules for 'site_url'.

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 submits a batch of URLs for (re)crawling, distinguishes from single URL submission by mentioning 'batch', and notes quota consumption. This effectively separates it from sibling 'submit_url'.

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 implies usage for batch submission but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'submit_url' or mention prerequisites such as checking quota via 'get_url_submission_quota'. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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