scrape

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return type (HTML), core capabilities, and credit costs, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits potential failure modes, rate limits, or whether the operation has side effects on the target site, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and capability/cost summary in the second. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes, though the second sentence is a bit of a list and could be more structured.

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?

Given the complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the primary output (HTML), key features, and credit costs. It does not explain error handling or response structure beyond HTML, but the rich schema covers parameter details, making this reasonably 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 the schema already documents every parameter's meaning, including credit costs for country and dynamic. The description provides only a high-level summary of supported features, adding no meaningful details beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it scrapes any URL via the Scrapingdog API and returns the page's HTML, using the specific verb 'Scrape' and resource. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like screenshot (captures images) and search tools (return search 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 general-purpose scraping for any URL and lists key capabilities (JS rendering, proxies, geotargeting) that indicate when to use specific options, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. No alternatives are named.

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