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

Annotations only say this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write with no open-world access. The description adds the behavior an agent cannot get elsewhere: the 501 hosted_scraping_not_enabled failure mode, robots.txt compliance, the https-only fetch restriction, the required commerce:configure credential scope, and the sandbox-key 403 refusal. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context that prevents wasted or failing calls.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the preview-first guidance, then the failure modes. Every sentence carries distinct operational value, though the run of short prerequisite sentences (flag, robots.txt, scope, workspace) reads as a checklist rather than prose and could be tightened slightly.

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?

Ten parameters, three required, no output schema — the description covers creation semantics, the precondition chain, the credential and workspace requirements, and the sibling relationship for both validation and execution. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide to call it and call it correctly.

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 all ten parameters (including the two enums and their per-value semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces 'CSS selectors' and 'one public https page'; it adds nothing about auto_contribute or extraction_mode trade-offs beyond what the schema states. 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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: 'Create a hosted scrape job that reads prices from one public https page with CSS selectors.' The addition of 'on a schedule or on demand with run_scrape_job' cleanly distinguishes it from preview_scrape_job (validation) and run_scrape_job (execution), which are the two closest siblings in a very large tool list.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Try the selectors first with preview_scrape_job' gives the prerequisite step, and 'on demand with run_scrape_job' gives the execution alternative. It also states the gating conditions (release flag → 501, claimed workspace → 403) that determine whether calling it is even viable, which is stronger than most usage guidance.

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