audit_multiple_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional parallel processing and progress tracking, which are useful behavioral traits, but it does not disclose error handling, side effects, or any requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and key features without filler. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description gives the high-level purpose but omits details about return values, error handling, or input formats. The rich schema and sibling context compensate, but the description alone leaves some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of progress tracking, which is not a parameter, and aligns with the 'parallel' parameter, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 tool tests multiple URLs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_url which handle individual URLs. It also adds specific behavioral features (parallel processing, progress tracking) that make the purpose unambiguous.

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 'multiple URLs' implies use when multiple URLs need testing, and the context of sibling tools (audit_url for single URLs) reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving the guidance somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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