novada_scraper_result

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it explains that the result is only available upon task completion, that a not_ready response is returned for pending tasks, and details the output formats. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, and the description is consistent with them.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It earns its length.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the prerequisite (novada_scraper_status), the output formats, error handling (not_ready, contact support), and relates to sibling tools. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: task_id is linked to novada_scraper_submit, and format options are explained with real-world use cases (human-readable table, structured JSON, raw API response). This goes beyond the schema's simple enum values.

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 retrieves the completed result of an async scraping task by task_id. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('completed result'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like novada_scraper_submit (submit) and novada_scraper_status (check status).

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?

Explicit guidelines are provided: call novada_scraper_status first to confirm task completion, and note that calling on a pending task returns a not_ready response. It also advises contacting support with the task_id if errors occur. This clearly tells when and when not to use the tool.

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