inspect_urls

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

Even though annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: throttled execution ('Requests run a few at a time'), partial-failure isolation ('one URL failing does not sink the rest'), and quota limits ('daily quota is about 2000'). This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, when to use it, how it behaves under load, and the quota constraint. The key output is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 a read-only batch inspection tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return shape ('compact table') and the key fields. The operational constraints and failure behavior are covered, and parameter nuances live in the schema. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 fully documents site, urls, and account. The description adds batch-level context and quotas but doesn't need to explain individual parameters. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the heavy lifting is done by the input 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Inspect several URLs on the same property' — and immediately distinguishes it from the singular sibling inspect_url by emphasizing batch inspection. The compact table with indexed/canonical/last-crawl columns precisely conveys what the tool returns.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use this tool ('after a launch or a migration') and practical operational guidance about batch size and quotas. It doesn't explicitly contrast with inspect_url or say when to prefer alternatives, so it stops short of a full when-not discussion.

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