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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the billing model (prepaid balance charged: estimate now, up to the estimate cap after completion) and the exact failure condition (402 on insufficient spendable balance or monthly limit). The idempotent/openWorld hints are complemented, not contradicted, by this cost and error disclosure.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by cost, the user-confirmation rule, and the failure mode. 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the mutation's cost/error behavior is fully covered. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameters, which matters for a tool that requires both a job kind and ID.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions job_id or the job_kind enum values (scraping vs matching). An agent must infer both parameters entirely from the schema names.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('Approve ... and start it') applied to a clear resource (a job awaiting approval). This cleanly separates it from siblings like scout_get_job, scout_cancel_job, and scout_list_jobs without ambiguity.

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?

Names the precondition (job 'waits for approval') and adds an explicit user-interaction requirement: confirm the price before calling. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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