Retry a low-quality run

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

The description discloses significant behavioral details beyond annotations: progressive anti-blocking escalation (residential proxies, then browser crawler), termination after threshold or exhausting attempts, and that each attempt costs credits. Annotations only note non-read-only and non-destructive, lacking these important operational details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key mechanism, and ends with a critical cost warning. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the algorithm, termination conditions, and cost. Output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. The only minor gap is not specifying what happens after attempts are exhausted, but the description implies a stop condition.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds context for threshold and max_attempts by explaining the escalation and stopping criteria, and implies json_schema drives quality scoring. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 states the tool re-runs an actor with progressively stronger anti-blocking settings until a quality threshold is met, distinguishing it from related tools like run_actor or scrape_url. The specific verb 're-run' and resource 'actor' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 title and description clearly imply use for low-quality runs that need retrying with escalation, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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