Check URLs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: calls run concurrently and the response is one row per URL. It omits quota/rate-limit behavior, which matters for a batched inspection API and is the main operational risk an agent would want flagged.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and the cap, followed by the sibling equivalence. There is no filler and every clause carries information an agent needs to route the call correctly.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition covers scope, limit, concurrency, and output shape (one row per URL) even without an output schema. The remaining gap is that the actual inspection fields returned are only implied by reference to the sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including a detailed site_url explanation about domain properties covering subdomains, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates the "max 10" constraint already present in the urls schema description and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Inspect up to 10 URLs in one call") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wsp_check_url_gsc as the batch equivalent. It stops short of saying what data is actually inspected (the GSC index/inspection payload), so the agent must infer the payload from the name and the sibling reference.

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?

It names the alternative tool (wsp_check_url_gsc) and the condition that selects this one — multiple URLs, up to a hard cap of 10, run concurrently. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. what to do with more than 10 URLs, or whether to prefer the single tool for one URL), which keeps it below a 5.

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