batch_scrape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait: this is asynchronous, it returns a job id rather than results, and concurrency is bounded by memory. It says nothing about failure behavior for partial batches, result retention, rate limits, or whether the job id expires — meaningful gaps for an async write-style operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the return contract. The parenthetical about memory is slightly informal but still earns its place by signalling unbounded batching.

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?

For a two-parameter async tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke it (bulk input, async, job id handoff to crawl_status). It leaves the `formats` parameter and error/limit semantics unexplained, which is a real gap given 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps "addresses" to the required `urls` array; the `formats` parameter is never mentioned, leaving an entire input undocumented in both schema and description, along with accepted format values and any per-URL constraints.

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?

"Read many addresses in the background" gives a specific verb-plus-resource and the batch scope, which implicitly separates it from the singular scrape and from crawl_status (which the return value points at). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the batch-vs-single distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase "in the background" plus "Returns a job id for crawl_status" implies the two-step workflow: call this for bulk work, then poll crawl_status. However, there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no exclusion (e.g. use scrape for a single URL), and no stated batch-size guidance beyond the vague "as many at once as memory allows."

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