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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the call is an instant snapshot of a job that runs minutes to hours, and the response carries a next_action field guiding the subsequent step.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the polling caveat and return-value hint. No filler; each sentence adds an actionable fact.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the key return field (next_action) and the out-of-band completion email. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, this is close to complete, though it omits where job_id originates.

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% and the description says nothing about the single parameter job_id — no format, origin, or where it comes from (presumably start_scrape or list_scrapes). The name is largely self-explanatory, but the description contributes no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Get the current state of one scrape'), and the singular scoping distinguishes it from the sibling mapsdata_list_scrapes and mapsdata_start_scrape. An agent can identify the target operation without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit negative guidance ('Do NOT call it repeatedly in a loop') and explains that MapsData emails the user on completion, which tells the agent when to stop polling. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling (e.g. list_scrapes) for enumerating multiple jobs, so the routing picture is not fully complete.

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