batch_url_inspection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that domain properties cover all subdomains and that API limits apply. However, it does not mention what happens on invalid URLs, how many URLs are allowed, or any error behavior. The disclosed behavior is useful but incomplete.

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 compact: one sentence for purpose and two concise argument explanations. No filler or redundant content. The structure front-loads the core action and logically follows with parameter details, making it easy to scan.

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 simplicity (two params) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: batch operation, parameter sourcing, and domain property behavior. It could add specifics like maximum batch size or error handling, but 'within API limits' plus the output schema substantially fills the need. A small gap remains regarding practical limits.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in depth: site_url specifies it must be an exact GSC property from list_properties, provides examples, and explains domain vs. site property semantics. urls is defined as a list of URLs, one per line. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 starts with 'Inspect multiple URLs in batch', which clearly states the verb (inspect), resource (URLs), and scope (batch vs single). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_url_enhanced, which likely handles single URLs. The phrase 'within API limits' adds practical context.

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 gives explicit usage guidance for the site_url parameter, referencing list_properties and explaining domain vs. site property behavior. It implicitly indicates this is the batch alternative to single-URL inspection, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is clear enough for correct use.

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