batch_url_inspection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It mentions that it 'return[s] crawl/index status' but omits any details about rate limits, partial failures, authentication requirements, or how invalid URLs are handled. The silence on side effects (even though inspection is likely read-only) is a notable gap.

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?

A single, compact sentence that conveys the core action and result without filler. However, it is slightly too sparse—users may need a bit more context about the returned statuses—but for a simple tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only a terse description, the agent lacks clarity on what 'crawl/index status' actually looks like, whether errors are returned per-URL or as a single failure, and any side effects. The description is adequate for a basic call but insufficient for robust error handling or formatting expectations.

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 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already documents for siteUrl and urls. It does clarify the return meaning ('crawl/index status'), but that is behavioral, not parameter-specific. The max of 10 URLs is already in the schema, so the description provides only marginal added value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('URLs'), and immediately states the batch capacity ('up to 10 URLs at once'). This distinguishes it from the single-URL sibling tools like inspect_url_enhanced, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 a batch use case ('at once') but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over inspect_url_enhanced or other alternatives. It lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions for use, leaving the selection logic implicit.

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