audit_multiple_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It highlights parallel processing and progress tracking but does not state non-destructive nature, error handling beyond the 'continueOnError' parameter, or output format. The schema parameters address some gaps, but the description itself is minimal.

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 single sentence is extremely concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes key features efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about return values, result format, or what 'test' means in terms of output. The tool is relatively complex, but the description does not sufficiently contextualize the full behavior.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, merely referencing parallel processing in a general sense.

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 explicitly states the tool tests multiple URLs, with emphasis on efficiency via parallel processing and progress tracking. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'audit_url' which handles single URLs.

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 'efficiently with optional parallel processing' implies this is best for batch testing, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or direct to siblings like 'audit_with_session' for session-based workflows.

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