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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying organization scope and newest-first ordering, but it does not describe return format, pagination behavior, or how filtering affects results.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its scope and ordering information appear immediately.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, yet the description does not explain parameter behavior or return values. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the definition remains too sparse for an agent to understand filtering and result shape without inference.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter. It says nothing about the `limit` cap/default or the `status` enum, so an agent must rely entirely on the bare 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: "List this organization's recent scrapes." It also adds scope and ordering with "this organization's" and "newest first." It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `mapsdata_get_scrape`, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives such as `mapsdata_get_scrape` or `mapsdata_start_scrape`. There are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or usage context.

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