get_scraper_progress

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the behavioral bar is lower. The description's real contribution is enumerating the five status values, which is useful, but it doesn't say which are terminal, whether it is pollable, or what to do next when status becomes 'ready' or 'failed'.

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?

One short, front-loaded fragment with no filler. It is efficient, though the sentence fragment lacks a subject, and its terseness is part of why usage guidance is missing rather than a model of structure.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level but omits the workflow context (post-run polling, transition to results retrieval) that an agent needs to place this tool correctly among its 30 siblings.

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% and the schema already explains that snapshot_id comes from run_scraper. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter 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?

States the resource (a run) and its return concept (status) and enumerates the possible values, so an agent can tell it reports progress rather than results. It never names its siblings (get_scraper_details, get_scraper_results, run_scraper) or says explicitly that the 'run' is a scraper run, so differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication that this is the polling companion to run_scraper, no guidance on repeated polling, and no pointer to get_scraper_results once the status is 'ready'. The agent must infer the entire workflow from the schema note 'snapshot_id from run_scraper'.

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