get_scraped_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (counts, validation status, dates, sample titles) and positions it as 'quick' and 'actionable,' but it does not mention potential edge cases, performance implications, or whether any filtering is applied beyond the optional source parameter. This is adequate but not deep.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by use context and return details. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to enumerate return values in detail, but it does anyway, which is helpful. It gives enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it among many siblings, though it doesn't contrast with alternatives. This is slightly above the minimum.

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 description coverage is 100% and covers the optional 'source' parameter with examples, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The description doesn't mention the parameter at all, but the schema handles it, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a quick, actionable overview of what raw scraped records are available.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_raw_data_status by focusing on the overview of raw scraped records, and lists exactly what the overview contains.

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 it: 'Use this to see what's in the pipeline before deciding which source to work on.' This provides clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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