crawl_batch

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

Without annotations, the description explains the key behavioral nuance: default parallel fast extraction with browser fallback on failure, too-short content, or SPA skeleton pages. It also discloses that setting prefer_fast=False changes the output by omitting fast/fallback method markers. This goes beyond a basic summary, though it doesn't mention potential side effects or rate limits.

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 well-structured: it states the purpose, typical usage, alternatives, and then parameter combinations. It is concise, using bullet points for clarity, with no redundant information.

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 complexity, the description covers the main use case, fallback behavior, and key parameter effects. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It does not detail concurrency or LLM config semantics, but those are documented in the schema, making the overall description sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how prefer_fast and min_content_length interact (e.g., min_content_length only affects whether fast extraction is deemed sufficient, and prefer_fast=False disables the fast path entirely). This contextualizes parameters beyond the schema's basic 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 it performs batch crawling of multiple web pages with an automatic degradation strategy. It explicitly says it's for scenarios with a clear set of URLs needing parallel crawling, and distinguishes itself from crawl_single and crawl_site.

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 provides explicit guidance: use crawl_single for a single URL, use crawl_site for an entry page with link discovery needs. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative conditions.

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