batch

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 discloses the asynchronous behavior, the return of a job id, and the need to poll with batch_status. It also explains that summary mode returns metadata only. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or implications of failure. Core behavior is communicated but not exhaustively.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the action and async pattern; the second adds a practical tip about summary mode. It is front-loaded and every word contributes, though it could optionally mention the polling flow earlier.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: submit batch → poll with batch_status. It explains the summary mode and its purpose. It does not elaborate on error scenarios or limits, but the schema already caps URLs at 5000. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for the typical batch-scraping use case.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value for the 'mode' parameter by explaining that summary mode carries metadata only (title, description, canonical, contentLength) and is intended for audits. Other parameters are left to the schema, but the mode enhancement justifies a score above baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Scrape many URLs asynchronously with shared options.' It distinguishes itself from single-URL scraping by emphasizing the batch and async nature, and the mention of summary mode for audits differentiates it from other bulk tools like search_bulk. This is a precise and scoped purpose.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'For SEO/status audits over many pages set mode summary' and instructs to poll with batch_status. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, the context of 'many URLs' and the async pattern clearly imply it is for bulk operations. The guidance is clear but could be stronger with explicit exclusions.

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