web_multi_extract

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions parallel execution, which is a meaningful trait, but omits other important behaviors such as error handling per URL, rate limits, authentication requirements, and the exact format of the returned results. The description is skeletal for a tool that could fail partially.

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 redundant words. The core action and differentiator are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite being a batch operation, the description lacks crucial details: how failures are represented, whether output is raw HTML or extracted text, and any limits on parallelism or URL count. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent has little guidance on expected behavior beyond 'returns results,' leaving significant ambiguity.

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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter ('Array of URLs to extract content from') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Extract'), a resource ('content from multiple URLs'), and a distinguishing trait ('in parallel'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling web_extract, which likely handles a single URL. The purpose is 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 phrase 'from multiple URLs' establishes clear context for when to use this tool (i.e., when there is more than one URL). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative web_extract for single-URL cases, nor provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance. It implies the use case well but stops short of explicit routing.

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