List Scrape Strategies

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the non-destructive nature, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds context by mentioning that the list includes protection levels and credit estimates, which gives an agent an idea of what to expect. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any edge cases, so it's average.

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 two sentences long, both of which carry meaningful information: the purpose and the usage context. There is no redundant wording, and the structure is clean 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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells what the tool lists (strategies with protection levels and credit estimates) and when to use it (before scraping unknown protected sites). It does not elaborate on the response format, but this is likely not critical for comprehension.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description is not required to explain any parameter details. The tool appears to be a simple listing operation. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps because there are none.

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 function: 'List scrape strategies with protection levels and credit estimates.' The verb 'List' is specific, and the resource 'scrape strategies' is distinct from the sibling tools that perform scraping actions. This differentiates it effectively.

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 a specific use case: 'Use before scraping unknown protected sites.' This is explicit guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. Still, the context is clear and actionable.

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