inspect_urls

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: quota is checked first, and URLs not reached within the time budget are marked and can be re-sent. It does not, however, describe failure modes for invalid URLs or what a partial-batch outcome looks like beyond the 'marked' note.

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?

Front-loads the core action and batch limit, then adds a compact column-semantics note. The two-verdict explanation ('a page can PASS one and FAIL the other') is a slightly unusual digression but earns its place by preventing misinterpretation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, which is a plus. But with 0% parameter description coverage across 4 params and no explicit quorouting vs the inspect_url sibling, the description leaves key calling details for the agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the 'urls' format (comma-/newline-separated), leaving site_url, language, and concurrency entirely unexplained. This is a substantial gap given zero schema-level parameter documentation.

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 and resource ('Inspect up to 50 URLs in parallel') and clarifies the batch scope, distinguishing it from the singular sibling inspect_url. However, it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from inspect_url, so the sibling separation is inferred from the name and 'in parallel' phrasing rather than stated.

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 implies bulk usage ('up to 50 URLs in parallel', comma/newline separated) and mentions quota checking first, but does not explicitly state when to use this over inspect_url, when to avoid it, or prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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