Scrappa

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results identify the property, are kept separate from Google Search Console, and dates are normalized while preserving declared offsets and refresh cadence. This is meaningful disclosure about output semantics.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose (read reporting for one property) and then layers the qualifiers. No wasted words, though the middle clause is information-dense enough that it reads as compressed rather than crisp.

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 does some work in describing what results contain (property identity, date normalization). Still, the eight-operation enum is left entirely to the schema and there is no indication of what each operation returns or the shape of results, so the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the enum of operations and the 'exact verified property URL including scheme and trailing slash' constraint. The description reinforces the single-property requirement but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the 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?

States a clear verb+resource: reading private Bing Webmaster Tools reporting. It also explicitly scopes it away from Google Search Console, which helps disambiguate. It does not distinguish itself from the generic siblings call-endpoint/search-endpoints, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for one explicitly requested exact verified property' implies the tool is used one property at a time, which is useful scoping guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative statement, no mention of prerequisites like verification, and no routing versus the sibling endpoint tools.

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?

With empty annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. It is a blind passthrough: nothing is said about whether target endpoints are read or write operations, auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what a failure looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite discovery step follows 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?

There is no output schema, so return values needn't be explained, but as a generic dispatcher with no annotations and no behavioral disclosure, the description leaves the agent without needed context on mutability, auth, or failure modes. It is minimally adequate.

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 the schema already documents both 'params' (a JSON object string with example) and 'endpoint' (a name from search-endpoints results). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Call a Scrappa API endpoint by name'), which is clear and actionable, and it names the sibling 'search-endpoints' as the prerequisite for discovery. It is a clear purpose, though 'call an endpoint' is a generic dispatcher framing that doesn't hint at what kinds of endpoints exist or what the call yields.

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 explicit routing guidance: use search-endpoints first to discover endpoints and their parameters. This establishes the workflow relative to the sibling. However, it offers no when-not conditions and frames search-endpoints only as a prerequisite, not as a true alternative-selection rule.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses a result cap ('up to 10 matching endpoints') and the returned fields, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or behavior on zero 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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then return shape, then query guidance, then the handoff to call-endpoint. Each sentence carries information, though the narrowing advice is mildly filler.

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 simple single-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, query strategy, and the downstream call-endpoint handoff. Missing only edge-case behavior such as empty results and any auth requirements.

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% for the single query parameter, including examples, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the generic advice that more specific terms narrow results, which is behavioral rather than semantic detail about the parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for available Scrappa API endpoints by keyword') and makes the scope explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling call-endpoint, which executes endpoints rather than finding them.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the workflow: search here, then pass the returned name to call-endpoint, and use specific terms to narrow results. It names the alternative tool directly, but does not state when this tool is inappropriate or what to do if nothing matches.

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