Outscraper Request History

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool lists requests scoped to the current API key and can filter by bucket (running/finished/all). However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, sorting, or the exact data returned, leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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 lead sentence and bullet lists. It is concise but has some redundancy between 'debugging async flows' and 'debugging async submissions across tools', and between 'seeing running, completed, or failed jobs' and 'quick view of recent running or finished requests'.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, typical use cases, and bucket filtering. It doesn't specify default behavior when 'type' is omitted, but the schema marks it optional. Overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 has a single optional parameter 'type' with an enum and its own description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds context by explaining 'bucket' and aligning with 'running, completed, or failed jobs', but it doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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 opens with 'List recent Outscraper requests by bucket' – a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like requests_get (which likely fetches a specific request) and requests_delete (which deletes). The 'by bucket' clarifies filtering.

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 'Best for' and 'Use this when' sections list concrete scenarios: debugging async flows, losing a request id, viewing running/finished jobs, and cross-tool debugging. This provides clear usage context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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