get_raw_data_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the source filtering behavior but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention any performance or side-effect characteristics. The phrase 'Return a summary' implies read-only, but more explicit disclosure would be better.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no redundant language. Every word earns its place.

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 description is sufficient for a simple status tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. It covers purpose and parameter behavior. The output schema covers return structure, so the description does not need to list fields.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, but the tool description thoroughly explains the `source` parameter, giving examples and explaining that it limits results to records from that scraper. This compensates well for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 returns a summary of raw scraped data in CHRawdata.rawdata, a specific resource, and mentions optional source filtering. This distinguishes it from other status tools like database_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?

The description establishes a clear context for use: checking what raw scraped data is available, optionally for a specific scraper. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is evident.

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