cc_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the output includes URLs and WARC coordinates, and that coordinates are for cc_fetch_text, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, limit semantics, crawl selection, or whether any side effects occur. This is minimal for a query tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a practical pointer to cc_fetch_text, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 structure is likely covered. The description explains the main output (URLs + WARC coordinates) and the downstream tool, but it lacks guidance on limit/crawl parameter behavior and does not clarify when to choose this tool over siblings. It is adequate but not complete.

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. It implicitly ties 'domain' to the domain parameter and 'crawl' to the crawl parameter, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or the optional/nullable nature of 'crawl'. The parameter meaning is only partially conveyed.

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 returns specific URLs for a domain in a crawl along with WARC coordinates. It distinguishes itself from the sibling cc_fetch_text by explicitly saying the coordinates are meant to be passed to that tool, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 mentions that WARC coordinates are passed to cc_fetch_text, which provides a downstream usage hint, but it does not explain when to use cc_urls versus other sibling tools like cc_presence or cc_crawls. There is no explicit alternative guidance.

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