scrape_urls

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: parallel scraping and browser rendering to access blocked sites. However, it omits potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or cost implications.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words. The key purpose is front-loaded, and 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 moderate complexity (parallel, multiple URLs, output format options) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and distinctive feature (browser rendering). However, it does not mention the 'text' format option or handle edge cases like errors or limits, but the schema provides format details.

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 already covers both parameters (urls and format) with descriptions. The description does not add new detail about parameter usage or constraints, but provides context about the overall process. Given 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (scrapes), resource (multiple webpages), and distinctive features (parallel, browser rendering for blocked sites). It differentiates from sibling tool 'scrape_url' by emphasizing parallelism.

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 implies when to use (e.g., for blocked sites) but does not explicitly state when not to use, such as for single URLs, nor does it mention alternatives like 'scrape_url' or other tools.

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