batch_url_inspection

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'within API limits' but does not explain rate limit specifics, error handling, partial failures, or data access requirements. The description focuses primarily on input parameters rather than the behavior or side effects of the tool, which is a significant gap for a batch operation with potential partial results.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then uses a clear 'Args' structure to explain parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 two-parameter complexity, existing output schema, and sibling context, the description covers most essential aspects: what the tool does, parameter format, and usage nuances (domain vs URL property). It lacks detailed rate limit numbers or response structure, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value explanation. Overall, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this effectively for both parameters: site_url is explained with exact format and domain property behavior, and urls is clarified as a newline-separated list. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be even richer by specifying maximum batch size or URL format validation.

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's function: 'Inspect multiple URLs in batch.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'inspect_url_enhanced' which likely handles single URLs. The phrase 'within API limits' adds a scoping constraint that clarifies its intended use.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when you need to inspect multiple URLs. It also gives specific guidance on the site_url parameter, including how to handle domain properties and subdomains. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for single URL inspection, which would make it more complete.

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