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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the initial job state ('pending'), the returned artifacts (job key and dashboard URL), and the deployment requirement for the script. It omits auth/permission requirements and quota/unit consumption behavior, which for a job-launching mutation would be valuable.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the argument convention, then the return value and follow-up tools. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return payload (job key, dashboard URL) and the follow-up tools needed to observe completion, which is what an agent needs for a fire-and-poll job launch. Minor gap: no mention of required credentials or what happens if the named script is not deployed.

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 every parameter already carries its own documentation and the baseline is 3. The description only restates the 'args' semantics already given in the schema and adds nothing about units, priority, tags, or job_settings beyond what the structured fields state.

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 ('Start a Scrapy Cloud job that runs a standalone Python script') and immediately scopes it against the sibling by saying it runs a script 'instead of a spider', which distinguishes it from scrapy_cloud_run_spider. It also clarifies the deployment precondition (declared under 'scripts' in setup.py).

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 and routes the agent forward: 'Check progress with scrapy_cloud_get_job and read its output with scrapy_cloud_get_job_log.' It implies the script-vs-spider selection condition, but never states explicitly when NOT to use this tool (e.g. use run_spider for spiders), and gives no prerequisites around project deployment state.

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