web_scrape_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: parallel fetching, deduplication ('duplicate URLs read once'), partial-failure behavior ('a failed page is reported with its error while the others still return'), billing rule ('charged only if at least one page was read'), cost ($0.05 USDC) and latency (p99 20000ms). This is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a paid mutation-free network call.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and the 'one paid call' value proposition come first, then usage routing, then failure/billing semantics, then params, cost and latency. The trailing params enumeration partially duplicates the schema, which is the only real redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers return format (clean LLM-ready Markdown with title and meta description), error behavior, billing, cost and latency. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with types, ranges and defaults. The description's param list ('urls (1 to 20, required)', 'max_chars per page (500 to 30000, default 8000)', 'include_links') largely restates schema bounds rather than adding meaning like format or interaction semantics. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (bulk web scraper that reads up to 20 URLs to Markdown) and distinguishes itself from siblings by name (web_scrape for single URLs, site_map to discover URLs). An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs from adjacent tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when your agent works through a list of URLs: search results, product pages, a sitemap, a link list') and routes to alternatives with conditions ('For a single URL use web-scrape, to find the URLs of one site first use site-map'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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