scrape_async

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the async/long-running nature, the need to poll for results via 'get_job_status', and the return of a 'job_id'. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers the core operational behavior well.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear usage guidelines and a note on the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (async scraping with multiple parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of covering the essential context: purpose, usage scenarios, and result handling. It could benefit from mentioning error cases or prerequisites, but it's largely complete for agent use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Submit an async scraping job for long-running requests.' It specifies the verb ('submit'), resource ('async scraping job'), and scope ('long-running requests'), and distinguishes it from immediate scraping alternatives like 'scrape_url'.

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 usage guidelines with a bulleted list: 'Use this for: - Pages that take > 60 seconds to load - Heavy JS rendering tasks - When you don't need immediate results - Batch processing workflows.' It clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scrape_url' for immediate results.

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