bulk_scrape

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: per-URL failure isolation ('one URL error doesn't affect the rest'), a default of 10 and hard cap of 30, and a politeness interval. It stops short of explaining what happens past the cap (truncation vs. error), per-request timeouts, or total runtime for a 30-URL batch.

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 tightly packed clauses, front-loaded with the core value proposition and then the safety limits and return shape. Each clause carries distinct information (batch economics, failure isolation, caps, politeness, output) with no filler.

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 6-parameter batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behaviors: batching, isolation, caps, throttle, and the per-item return fields (url/status/summary). It leaves the truncation behavior at the 30-cap and timeout semantics unspecified, which is a modest but real gap.

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 every parameter already carries its own doc text and the baseline is 3. The description only repeats the max/interval defaults and adds the return-field shape; it adds no syntax or edge-case meaning (e.g. selector precedence vs article extraction) beyond 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource (搬运抓取多个 URL) and immediately differentiates itself from the single-URL sibling 'scrape' by framing the value as 'one call replaces N round trips'. An agent can tell this apart from scrape/crawl without opening either schema.

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 it (many URLs, replacing N round trips) and implies the alternative to looping 'scrape'. However it does not explicitly name 'scrape' or 'crawl' or state when NOT to use bulk mode (e.g. for a single URL or full-site traversal), so the routing guidance stays implicit.

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