novada_scraper_submit

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are complemented by the description stating async behavior and polling requirement. However, the parameter mismatch between description and schema undermines reliability.

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 sections, front-loaded with purpose, and provides workflow steps without redundancy. Slightly longer due to useful usage notes, but every sentence adds value except the parameter mismatch.

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?

The tool is complex (async, 3 required params including nested objects), but the description fails to explain the actual schema parameters or return value format (no output schema). The missing parameter mapping makes it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description contradicts the schema by stating 'Required: url' and optional 'scraper_type' and 'country', which are not in the schema. The actual parameters (platform, operation, params) are not explained beyond schema descriptions, so the description adds confusion rather than value.

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 it submits an async scraping task and returns a task_id, distinguishing from synchronous novada_scrape. However, the description mentions URL as required while the schema requires platform, operation, and params, causing confusion about the actual parameters.

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?

Explicitly provides a workflow (submit → poll → retrieve), describes when to use (async for JS-heavy, rate-limited, long-running), and offers an alternative (novada_scrape for 129 platforms). Also includes a note about contacting support for placeholder task_ids.

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