scrapeer_get_run_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about status being 'completed' but doesn't describe return format or side effects. No contradiction, but little extra beyond annotations.

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?

Description is compact, front-loaded with purpose, and structured into use/when-not-to-use. Every sentence provides value.

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?

Tool is a simple status check with a single well-documented parameter, read-only annotations, and sibling context. Description covers purpose, usage conditions, and exclusions, sufficient for effective selection and invocation.

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 has 100% coverage: the only parameter execution_id is described as returned by scrapeer_run_flow or scrapeer_run_flow_and_wait. The description does not add additional parameter details, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Check the status of a cloud run', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by directing users to scrapeer_get_run_results for results, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use (after starting a run with scrapeer_run_flow or monitoring runs started elsewhere) and when not to use (to get results, use scrapeer_get_run_results). This is full guidance with an alternative named.

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