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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the job is queued pending approval with a price estimate and nothing is charged yet, which tells the agent the call is non-committal despite being a create operation. However, it says nothing about permissions, duplicate jobs, or what happens if the job is never approved, and openWorldHint/destructiveHint already cover the safety profile 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the approval lifecycle, then retrieval. No filler; the parenthetical job_kind hint is compact and useful.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the description covers the async approval lifecycle and result retrieval path. The main remaining gap is the unexplained project_id/website_id pairing for a 3-param tool with zero schema documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the meaningful semantic of 'urls' — omitting them scrapes the full catalog rather than a URL list — but website_id and project_id are never described, and their relationship (why both are needed) is left entirely to inference.

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 and resource ('Create a scraping job of a website') and clarifies the two scope modes: full catalog vs. given product URLs. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling scout_analyze_website, which a reader might reasonably confuse with scraping, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly names the next-step tools and the condition that selects them: approve via scout_approve_job(job_kind="scraping"), retrieve per-URL results via scout_get_url_results. Missing is any guidance on when to choose this over scout_analyze_website, so usage is clear but not exclusionary.

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