Inspect several URLs

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: concurrent execution, per-URL failure handling rather than whole-batch abortion, and quota consumption of roughly 2000/day per property. This is exactly the kind of operational behavior an agent needs to know.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the most important facts: batch size, concurrency, output shape, and usage examples. The second paragraph adds valuable failure and quota details without excessive padding.

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?

The description covers the core invocation requirements, return shape at a high level, failure behavior, and quota implications. It does not enumerate exact response fields, but for a batch inspection tool with a clear purpose and well-described schema, this is sufficient.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the 25-URL limit and mentions that all URLs must belong to the property, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's existing field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool inspects up to 25 URLs in one call, runs concurrently, and returns a per-URL summary plus coverage-state counts. It is immediately distinguishable from the singular sibling `inspect_url` by its batch orientation.

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 concrete usage context: auditing sets of pages, such as top landing pages from `query_search_analytics` or URLs from a sitemap. It does not explicitly state when to prefer `inspect_url` over this tool, but the batch purpose is clear enough.

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