check_many

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it is a 'live' check returning 'A–F grade', but does not address potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 with two sentences, no filler. It front-loads the action and purpose effectively.

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 and no annotations, the description partially covers return format ('A–F grade per site') and usage context. However, it lacks details on error handling, speed, or edge cases, leaving gaps for a simple tool.

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% with a description for the sole parameter. The tool description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating 'several domains/URLs'. Baseline score of 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 verb 'Run', the resource 'live web health & security check', and the scope 'several domains/URLs at once'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_website_health' by implying aggregation.

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 provides context by stating it is 'useful to audit a fleet of sites or compare deployments', which implicitly guides when to use it over a single-site check. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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