get_scraper_results

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add operational context. It does add one genuinely useful trait: the call is non-blocking and returns status "running" when results are not ready, which tells the agent to poll. It does not say what happens to results after completion (retention, idempotency, size limits).

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 short sentences, no filler, and the readiness/polling caveat is placed where it will be read. The first sentence is under-specified rather than padded, so length is not the problem.

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?

With no output schema, the description should give some sense of the return shape (records/data plus a status field), and it only hints that a status field exists. For a single-parameter read tool with clean annotations this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about payload structure and about the progress-vs-results split.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema itself documents it fully ("snapshot_id from run_scraper"), so coverage is 100% and the description need not restate it. The description adds nothing about the ID's origin or validity, 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?

"Records of a finished run" conveys that this retrieves output from a completed scraper run, but it omits the verb and the resource name (scraper results), relying on the tool name to fill that in. It does not distinguish itself from get_scraper_progress or run_scraper, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 only usage hint is implicit: the 'running' status comment implies this is a polling call. There is no statement of when to call this instead of get_scraper_progress (progress vs. final payload), nor prerequisites such as whether run_scraper must have completed first.

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