run_scraper

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavior: every returned record is billed, the call waits up to 45 seconds, long jobs return a snapshot_id with status 'running', and failed inputs are indicated by an 'error' field. These details materially affect cost, latency, and error handling.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then proceeds through input shape, method behavior, timeout handling, and error signaling. Every clause adds operational value with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the async return path, record counts, billing, and error handling. It does not describe the full record structure, but it points to get_scraper_results for retrieval and get_scraper_progress for polling, which is sufficient for most invocation decisions.

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 75%, so the schema already documents method, dataset_id, and limit_per_input. The description adds useful semantics by explaining that input should match sample_input from get_scraper_details, one object per URL or query, and by clarifying how limit_per_input applies only to discover_by_* methods.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Run a scraper method') and immediately clarifies the required input shape and method-specific output behavior. It distinguishes collect_by_url from discover_by_* methods and references the exact sibling tools used before and after this step.

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?

It explains how to prepare input via get_scraper_details and how collect_by_url differs from discover_by_* in output volume. It also gives clear next-step guidance for long-running jobs by naming get_scraper_progress and get_scraper_results, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other scraping siblings.

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