Outscraper Request Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation checks status, that statuses are Pending/Success/Failure, and that it returns completed data. It also implies a polling flow. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or idempotency, but these are less critical for a read-only status check.

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 well-structured with a clear topic sentence, a numbered typical flow, and a bulleted 'Use this tool when' list. Every sentence adds value and the content is effectively front-loaded.

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 is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema. The description provides enough context for correct usage: when to use, what the request_id is, the statuses, and that completed data is returned. No additional information is necessary for effective 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'request_id' has a terse schema description 'Async request id.' The tool description adds meaningful context by explaining how to obtain the request_id (capture the returned id from a previous async submission), which goes 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 explicitly states 'Check the status of an asynchronous Outscraper request' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like requests_list and requests_delete by focusing on status polling for a single async request.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: after calling any tool with execution_mode='async', when you need to know status, and when you need completed data. It outlines a typical flow with steps. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like requests_list, so no direct 'when-not' is stated.

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