run_collector

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden, and it does: it discloses return behavior (short runs return rows, long runs return 202 with run_id/statusUrl), billing semantics (per delivered row, never for failures), and the async flag's effect. This gives the agent a solid mental model of the tool's runtime behavior and side effects.

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?

Three sentences, zero fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then packs behavior, billing, and async guidance efficiently. Every sentence earns its place with actionable information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description provides essential return information (inline rows vs 202 with run_id/statusUrl) and points to collector_run_status for polling. It also references list_collectors for input schema details, completing the contextual loop. It does not mention error scenarios or parameter validation, but the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description explicitly clarifies how to use each parameter: slug from list_collectors, input matching the collector's inputSchema (with an example), and async to force background execution. This adds real semantic value beyond the schema's field descriptions, making it a 4.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run') with a clear resource ('a Collector by slug') and the key input type ('semantic input'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_collectors (listing vs executing) and collector_run_status (polling vs initiating). The description leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly points to list_collectors for inputSchema preparation and to collector_run_status for long-run polling, giving the agent the correct workflow. It also explains when to use the async flag ('force background execution'), which provides clear usage context. No alternative tool is mentioned as a replacement, but the reference to these siblings establishes when this tool is appropriate.

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