extract_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions concurrency and the return type ('list of extraction results'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'extract content' entails (e.g., text, metadata). For a batch operation with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with the return value, making it easy to parse. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential 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 moderate complexity (batch extraction with concurrency control), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and return type but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings. It meets the bare minimum for a read-like tool but leaves gaps.

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 fully documents both parameters ('urls' and 'max_concurrent'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Extract content from multiple URLs concurrently.' It specifies the verb ('extract'), resource ('content'), and scope ('multiple URLs concurrently'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_content' (which might handle single URLs). The description is specific but lacks sibling comparison.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'extract_content' (for single URLs) or 'compile_report' (for processing extracted data), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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