batch_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about parallel execution, the return of score/grade/counts, and auto-detection of format, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidelines. No redundant or vague wording. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers core function, usage, and return values (score, grade, counts). It lacks explanation of output format options (full vs compact) but schema covers that. Good overall.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds limited extra: it implies the domains parameter by stating 'up to 10 domains', but does not elaborate on format differences or force_refresh beyond what the schema provides. Adequate.

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 performs a bulk scan of up to 10 domains in parallel, runs a full security audit, and returns score, grade, and finding counts. It mentions the specific resource (domains) and distinguishes from the sibling tool compare_domains.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'audit multiple domains at once' or 'do a bulk scan of several domains simultaneously'. Also gives an exclusion: 'distinct from compare_domains which does a side-by-side analysis of 2–5 domains', providing a clear alternative.

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