get_scrape_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's polling nature, status values, and expected workflow sequence. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error handling for 'failed' status, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential status values and explicit usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical operational guidance without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's polling nature and the existence of an output schema (which presumably covers status return values), the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the workflow relationship with sibling tools, status values, and polling behavior. The main gap is lack of error handling guidance for 'failed' status.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'run_id', but the description compensates by explaining that this tool checks the status of 'a competitor scrape job started by scrape_competitor_ads', implicitly defining run_id as the identifier returned by that initiating tool. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema type declaration.

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 the specific action ('Poll the status') and resource ('competitor scrape job started by scrape_competitor_ads'), distinguishing it from siblings like scrape_competitor_ads (which starts the job) and get_competitor_ads (which retrieves results). It explicitly names the initiating tool, establishing a clear workflow relationship.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: after calling scrape_competitor_ads, and when to stop using it (when status is 'completed', then call get_competitor_ads). It also specifies polling frequency ('every few seconds') and names the alternative tool for retrieving results, creating a complete usage protocol.

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