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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the 'newest first' ordering behavior, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about pagination, truncation at the limit cap, or that it is workspace-scoped beyond the phrase itself.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with scope and ordering front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin — no return-shape hint, no pagination or cursor behavior, no mention of the status filter. It leaves the agent to reverse-engineer usage from the schema alone.

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 must carry the burden and it does not: neither the 'limit' cap (max 25) nor the 'status' enum filter (queued/running/cancelling/cancelled/completed/failed) is mentioned. An agent reading only the description would not know it can filter by scrape status.

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+resource and a scope ('this workspace's recent scrapes') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as mapsdata_get_scrape (single scrape) or mapsdata_start_scrape, though the list-vs-get distinction is fairly intuitive.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery/overview tool for prior scrapes — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like mapsdata_get_scrape for a specific scrape or mapsdata_start_scrape for a new one.

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