batch_get_page_map

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses key behavioral details: each URL opens in a separate tab, results are stored in the URL LRU cache rather than the active slot, and individual failures are isolated. These are significant operational traits not inferable from annotations or schema.

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 tightly structured: a one-sentence summary, three bullet points of behavioral notes, and a clear Args list. No redundant text; 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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers parallel behavior, caching location, failure semantics, and parameter limits, making it complete for a multi-URL batch 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?

The input schema only provides types and a default, while the description adds essential constraints: urls limited to 10 and http/https only, max_concurrency default 5 and maximum 5. This meaningfully enriches the schema and guides correct invocation.

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 begins with a clear, specific action: 'Get Page Maps for multiple URLs in parallel.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_page_map by explicitly targeting multiple URLs and parallel processing.

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 clearly implies usage for fetching page maps of multiple URLs concurrently, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the singular get_page_map or list any exclusions or alternatives. Thus it provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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