batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a bare statement by disclosing billing behavior ('billed as one request'), the exact semantics of each mode, sitemap auto-discovery for 'site', and the default/max limits. It does not mention error handling or output format, but covers the key behavioral traits relevant to invocation.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition, and every sentence adds critical information: billing, input options, mode details, and use case. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains purpose, usage, mode outputs, limits, and typical use cases. It does not detail the return structure or error conditions, but those are reasonable omissions given the tool's straightforward nature and absent output schema.

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?

Even though the schema already has 100% coverage, the description significantly enriches parameter understanding. It clarifies that 'urls' and 'site' are mutually exclusive, explains how 'mode' maps to different output types, and specifies that 'limit' applies only to site mode with default 25 and max 50—all 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?

The description opens with 'Process many URLs in ONE call,' clearly stating the tool's batch-oriented purpose. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting the billing advantage and listing distinct modes, making it unmistakable from single-URL tools like read_url or score_url.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for full-site reads or bulk URL processing,' providing clear context for when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly name single-URL alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the exclusion implicit rather than explicit.

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