bulk_audit

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 batch size cap, the output structure (summary table with level and score), and the Pro subscription prerequisite. It does not explicitly state side effects (though audit implies read-only) or failure behavior, but the key behavioral traits are covered for a simple tool.

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 three concise sentences, each conveying essential information: action and limit, return output, and subscription requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains zero 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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, input limit, output format, and key prerequisite. It lacks details on error handling or invalid URL behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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%: the only parameter 'urls' is already described in the schema with 'List of URLs to audit (max 50, Pro only)'. The description merely reiterates the limit and Pro requirement without adding new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Audit') and resource ('multiple websites'), with an explicit batch limit that distinguishes it from the sibling tool audit_url. It also specifies the return format ('summary table with level and score'), making the purpose 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 description clearly indicates when to use this tool: when auditing up to 50 websites at once. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., audit_url for single URLs) or state exclusions, but the context is clear. The Pro subscription requirement also helps set expectations for usage.

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