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 full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state lack of side effects, authentication requirements, or behavior on empty result sets. It also fails to mention any pagination or rate-limit implications. The description lacks the transparency expected of a tool with zero annotations.

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-organized with a concise opening sentence followed by clearly labeled 'Best for' and 'Use this when' sections. It avoids fluff and front-loads the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand quickly.

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 simple optional parameter and the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context), the description covers the essential use cases: listing recent requests, debugging async flows, and checking status. It does not mention edge cases like pagination or error conditions, but for a straightforward list tool with an output schema, this is reasonably 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?

The schema describes the only parameter 'type' as 'Optional request bucket.' The tool description adds meaning by explaining the buckets as 'running, completed, or failed,' which maps directly to the enum values. This enriches the schema description without redundancy.

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 a clear, specific verb and resource: 'List recent Outscraper requests by bucket.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like requests_get (specific request retrieval) and requests_delete (deletion). The 'Best for' and 'Use this when' sections reinforce the purpose without tautology.

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 explicit 'Best for' and 'Use this when' lists, giving concrete scenarios such as debugging async flows and recovering lost request IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context makes the intended use clear enough relative to sibling tools.

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