Consultar actualizacion del catalogo

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific data returned (progress, result, errors), which is useful but does not contradict the annotations. It stops short of describing error handling or edge cases.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail or redundancy.

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 description covers the basic function but lacks details on output structure, behavior for missing/invalid run_id, and its relationship to start_catalog_refresh is implied rather than explicit. Adequate for a simple status tool but with notable gaps.

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 schema provides run_id with length constraints but no description of its meaning. The tool description does not explain what run_id represents or how it should be obtained, leaving the parameter semantics ambiguous despite the self-explanatory name.

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's function: it queries progress, results, and errors of a Scrapy catalog refresh. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_catalog_refresh (which initiates a refresh) and the product search tools.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool, such as 'after starting a refresh' or 'to check if a refresh completed'. It only states the function without usage context or comparison to alternatives.

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