analyze_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that full page content will not enter the agent's context and that only the analysis result returns. It does not cover error or failure behavior, but for a URL-reading tool the key privacy/context behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 three sentences with no filler: a crisp purpose statement, a usage condition list, and an explicit pointer to the alternative tool. It is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The output schema covers return shape, the input schema fully documents both parameters, and the description covers when to use the tool, when to avoid it, and what behavioral guarantee to expect. Although research_web is not named, the phrase 'quando o usuário fornecer a(s) URL(s)' clearly separates this tool from web research.

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% and the schema already documents URL count, ordering, comparison usage, the request default, and examples. The description reinforces the comparison use case but does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Lê'), resource ('URLs'), and outcome ('devolve uma análise pronta, sem o texto bruto'), which makes the tool's function unambiguous. The negative clause about raw text also distinguishes it from read_url.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('quando o usuário fornecer a(s) URL(s) e quiser resumo, parecer técnico, opinião ou comparação') and names the alternative for the opposite case ('Prefira read_url apenas quando o texto completo da página for necessário de verdade'). This gives the agent clear routing guidance.

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