Scrappa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior the annotations cannot express: requests consume credits on the user's Scrappa account, which matters for invocation decisions. It still omits error/failure behavior and rate limits.

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 core action and zero filler. The credit note is the only slight tail-end addition, but it earns its place as a cost signal.

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 only two well-documented parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly complete: it covers discovery workflow and cost. A brief note on failure modes when the endpoint name is invalid or params are malformed would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so both parameters (endpoint name and JSON params string) are already fully documented in the schema with examples. The description's only parameter-related contribution is directing the agent to discover parameters via the other tool, which is marginal over the schema itself.

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 specific verb (Fetch) and resource (Scrappa API endpoint / third-party site data) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the discovery sibling, which only lists endpoints. An agent can tell that this is the execution tool while search-endpoints is the discovery tool.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance: use the discovery tool first to find an endpoint and its parameters, then call this. The only weakness is that it refers to that tool as 'Find API endpoints' rather than the actual sibling name 'search-endpoints', and it offers no when-not-to-use or rate/credit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (names, descriptions, parameters), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing, nor about result ordering or empty-result handling.

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 purpose, followed by return contents and the downstream usage hint. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return fields, and the workflow linkage to call-endpoint closes the main gap. Pagination mechanics are left entirely to the schema, which is a minor but real omission for a 3-param search tool.

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 query, limit, and offset are all fully documented in the schema including defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find Scrappa API endpoints by keyword') and explicitly names what it returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling call-endpoint by telling the agent to use a returned name with that tool.

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 clear context: search first, then feed the returned endpoint name into 'Call an API endpoint'. The workflow relationship to the sibling is made explicit, though no when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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