Start a scrape job (async)

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

The description discloses credit cost per call, non-idempotent behavior ('NOT idempotent, do not retry on your own'), and the need to confirm with the user before spending credits. These go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by adding financial and guidance context. It also warns about retries, which is valuable.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, cost/idempotency, user confirmation, and sibling comparison. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary details.

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?

The tool involves async job submission with cost implications, and the description covers all actionable aspects: the async behavior, credits, non-idempotence, user confirmation, job id return, and polling step. Given no output schema, the 'Returns a job id' line provides the critical return information, and the sibling guidance completes the picture.

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?

While the schema fully documents all 5 parameters, the description adds the economic detail that 'Multiple related keywords cost the same 2 credits,' which is not in the schema. It also hints at the `radius` parameter with 'large areas,' but the schema already covers per-parameter semantics.

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 uses the verb 'Submit' with a clear resource ('Google Maps scrape job') and specifies asynchronous execution ('without waiting for it to finish'), distinguishing it from the synchronous `scrape_google_maps` sibling. It also mentions returning a job id, clarifying the tool's core function.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this instead of scrape_google_maps for large areas or when the user wants to continue working meanwhile,' providing a direct alternative comparison. Also indicates the follow-up flow with `get_scrape_results`, making the usage context clear.

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