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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, which is surprising for what reads like a read-only status query. The description contradicts this by describing a passive lookup. No permission or rate-limit context is given, and the non-idempotent/destructive annotation is unexplained.

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 names the parameter, the operation, and the return values with zero padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return shape, but it only names three status values without describing the response structure. More importantly, the destructive/non-idempotent annotations are left unexplained, which is a real gap for an agent deciding whether to call this.

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 single task_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or example detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (查询/query) and resource (任务状态/task status) keyed by task ID, and enumerates the possible return states (处理中、成功、失败). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings scraper_task_list and scraper_task_result which handle listing and results.

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 description implies this is a polling/status-check tool but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like scraper_task_result or scraper_task_list. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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