get_scraper_progress

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the terminal and intermediate states (starting, running, ready, failed, canceled), which tells the agent what to expect without an output schema. It stops short of disclosing polling cadence, whether the call is non-blocking, or what accompanies each state.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core concept (status of a run) is front-loaded ahead of the state enumeration. It is a noun phrase rather than a full verb-first statement, which is the only structural weakness.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and returnable states adequately. It omits the lifecycle context an agent needs to call it well – namely that it follows run_scraper and how it relates to get_scraper_results – leaving a clear, if minor, gap.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents snapshot_id and its origin. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (a run) and what is returned (its status), and it enumerates the possible states, which lets an agent recognize the tool's purpose immediately. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_scraper_results, get_scraper_details, or run_scraper, nor does it state the polling relationship to run_scraper.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when the alternative result/detail tools should be chosen instead, and no statement that this is meant to be polled after run_scraper. The only usage signal is the schema hint 'snapshot_id from run_scraper', which is not in the description itself.

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