Wait for a scrape to finish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing that the tool sends MCP progress notifications when requested, and it mentions the practical client-abort behavior. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, giving the agent useful operational context.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core behavior, then gives usage guidance, and finishes with a timeout recommendation. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient.

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 simplicity (no output schema, three well-documented parameters), the description covers the essential loop behavior, timeout handling, progress notifications, and client constraints. It references get_scrape for the return format, which is acceptable since get_scrape is a sibling. It doesn't detail error cases or failure handling, but those are likely covered by the referenced get_scrape behavior, so the description is adequate for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds extra context not in the schema, specifically about timeoutSeconds: it warns that many clients abort after ~60 seconds and advises keeping the default unless the client supports more. This practical guidance helps the agent choose parameter values correctly, exceeding the schema's baseline.

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 a specific action: 'Poll a scrape until it is done (or failed), or until timeoutSeconds passes, then return its status like get_scrape.' It names the resource (scrape) and the result (status), and differentiates from get_scrape by using the waiting/polling behavior. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to wait for completion) and gives a practical loop strategy ('If it is still running when the time is up, just call wait_for_scrape again'). It also warns about client timeout limits and advises keeping the default timeout. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_scrape as a non-waiting alternative, though the 'like get_scrape' reference implicitly distinguishes them.

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