batch_inspect_urls

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the response shape (indexed / not indexed / errors) and what fields each group carries, though it says nothing about GSC rate limits or quota behavior for a 50-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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then output semantics, then routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though the middle sentence is dense with enumerated fields and could be tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the three result groups and their fields. Only minor gaps remain, such as batch failure/partial-error handling and API quota considerations.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the GSC-specific siteUrl format. The description restates the 50-URL cap and the list input but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('inspect'), resource ('URLs'), and scope ('up to 50 in one call'), then defines the three output groupings. It is immediately distinguishable from the single-URL sibling inspect_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 gives an explicit trigger ('when the user hands over a list of URLs') and names both alternatives with their selecting conditions: inspect_url for a single URL and check_indexing_issues for top traffic pages when no list is supplied.

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