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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description frames this purely as a passive retrieval ('获取 JSON 结果') with no mention of destruction, consumed results, or non-repeatability. An agent reading the text would expect a safe, repeatable read, directly conflicting with the structured safety profile. This is an Annotation Contradiction.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the precondition and then the fallback action; no filler or repetition. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting the side-effect information mandated by the annotations.

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 the description should say something about what the 'JSON 结果' contains or how large/paginated it is, and it does not. It does cover the essential gating logic, but it omits both the return content and the destructive side effect implied by the annotations, leaving notable gaps for a retrieval tool of this kind.

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% and the single task_id parameter is fully documented in the schema ('创建网页采集 Builder 任务时返回的任务 ID'). The description only restates '根据任务 ID' without adding format, source, or validity guidance, 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 names a specific verb and resource in Chinese: retrieve the JSON result for a task by task ID, gated on the task having succeeded. It is clearly distinguishable from scraper_task_status/scraper_task_list because it explicitly defers the non-success cases to status checking. It stops short of naming those sibling tools directly, so it is a 4 rather than 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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('仅当...任务状态为成功时') and an explicit else-branch ('任务处理中或失败时请先等待或检查任务状态'), which is real when-to-use/when-not guidance. It does not name scraper_task_status by name, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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