screenshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: a 5-credit cost and a note that binary bytes aren't returned as text (only image metadata). However, it doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, or the exact return structure, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, cost, and a critical behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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?

This tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only vaguely mentions 'reports image metadata'. It does not describe the returned data structure (e.g., base64, URL, JSON fields), error scenarios, or how to handle the result, leaving an agent under-informed for a complex tool.

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?

The input schema already documents all 8 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description only recaps some parameter capabilities in prose, adding minimal value beyond the schema, so 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 opens with 'Capture a screenshot of a URL via the Scrapingdog Screenshot API (/screenshot)', using a specific verb and resource. It lists supported features (full-page, viewport, wait-until, format, quality) which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scrape or search.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as scrape or search. The use case is implied by the tool's name, but there are no stated context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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