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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that results are shown 'as a table', a modest output-shape hint, and says nothing about pagination limits beyond what the schema's maxRows already implies.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the id-discovery guidance following immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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, but the description states the return is rows rendered as a table, which is adequate for a read-only, annotated tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema. A note on row-limit or truncation behavior would make it fully complete.

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 id, kind, and maxRows are already fully documented in the schema; the description's mention of fetching by id adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (fetch) plus resource (the rows of a saved scrape or scheduled run) and the output shape (a table), keyed by id and kind. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_my_saved_scrapes and list_my_runs tools, which it explicitly points to for id discovery.

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 an explicit prerequisite: 'Use list_my_saved_scrapes or list_my_runs first to find the id,' which routes the agent correctly. It does not state when-not to use it or contrast further with alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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