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

The description characterizes the operation as a 查询 (query/list) task, a non-mutating read, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent. This directly contradicts the read-only semantics implied by the description, and the description supplies no behavioral context (auth, side effects, rate limits) to clarify the discrepancy.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and filter dimensions with zero padding or redundancy. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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/query tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource and all filter dimensions, and the schema fully documents the 7 parameters including defaults and bounds. The main gap is that it offers no guidance on result shape or how to page through large result sets, but overall it is close to sufficient.

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 (end, page, type, status, keyword, pageSize) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the same filter dimensions without adding syntax, defaults, or value semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (查询/query) plus a concrete resource (Dataify 网页采集与 SERP 采集任务) and enumerates the filter dimensions (task ID, tool name, type, status, time range). It is far more specific than a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like scraper_task_status or scraper_task_result.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The reader can only infer that this lists tasks, but nothing tells them to prefer it over scraper_task_status or scraper_task_result.

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