Bulk URL inspection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: hard quota limits (2,000/day, 600/min) and the content of the summary returned. It does not detail failure/partial-result behavior when quota is exhausted.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by source modes and quota. No filler; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For an 8-parameter, 1-required tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input sources, output content, and rate limits. The only meaningful gap is explicit guidance on when to prefer this over inspect_url.

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 63%, so the schema documents much on its own. The description adds real meaning for the 'source' parameter by explaining that sitemaps are 'evenly sampled' and top_pages draws 'pages with the most impressions', but leaves limit, date defaults, and languageCode to the schema.

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 ('Runs URL Inspection on many URLs') and enumerates the exact outputs (coverage states, verdicts, canonical mismatches, crawl dates). The 'many URLs' scope cleanly distinguishes it from the single-URL sibling inspect_url.

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?

Describes where URLs come from (explicit list, sitemap, top_pages) and provides quota constraints, which implies appropriate usage. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this over inspect_url or any other alternative, nor states exclusions.

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