Get scrape status

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is live/non-blocking, and it enumerates what the status payload contains (queued/running/done/error, progress, resultCount, credits, coverage). It does not describe error behavior or response structure, but for a read-only status tool the annotations lower the bar.

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 sentences with no filler: the first defines the tool's output in a compact list, and the second states the usage rule and alternative. The key verb and resource appear first.

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 compensates by listing the main return categories (status, progress, resultCount, credits, coverage). It also gives the core use case and alternative. It is slightly thin on exact response shape and error conditions, but the tool is simple enough that this is near-complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents scrapeId and includeSearches. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond implying the scrape is identified by ID; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the 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?

States a specific verb 'Get' plus a precise resource, 'one scrape's live status', and enumerates the fields returned (status, progress, resultCount, credits, coverage). It distinguishes itself from wait_for_scrape by naming it as the blocking alternative, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 says when to use it: 'Use it to check on a scrape without waiting', and names the alternative wait_for_scrape for blocking. This is a clear usage rule and a sibling differentiation. It doesn't mention get_results/list_scrapes, but the tool's status-only scope makes those exclusions implicit.

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