scrape_competitor_ads

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 key traits: the tool starts an async job (implying it's non-blocking), returns a run_id for tracking, and requires polling via 'get_scrape_status' to check completion. It doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or permissions, but covers the core async behavior well, justifying a 4.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides clear usage steps. Every sentence earns its place by delivering essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (async job with polling), no annotations, and an output schema (which likely covers the run_id return), the description is fairly complete. It explains the async nature and workflow but lacks details on error cases or prerequisites. With output schema handling return values, it's adequate but not exhaustive, warranting a 4.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'account_id' implicitly in the context of fetching competitor ads but doesn't explain what this parameter represents (e.g., an account identifier for targeting). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Start an async scrape job to fetch fresh competitor ads.' It specifies the verb ('Start'), resource ('async scrape job'), and target ('competitor ads'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_competitor_ads' (which retrieves results) or 'analyze_account_ads' (which analyzes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'list_competitors'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 usage instructions: 'Then call get_scrape_status with that run_id and poll every few seconds until status is 'completed', then call get_competitor_ads.' It clearly outlines the workflow and when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_competitor_ads' for results), making it highly actionable for an AI agent.

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