get_usage_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It describes the tool as returning a guide, implying a non-destructive read operation. However, it lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or any potential impact, leaving room for 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 remarkably concise—two sentences that front-load the key action ('Returns the complete guided workflow') and context ('Call this at the start'). Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. It could optionally mention what the workflow looks like (e.g., structured steps), but it's adequate for agents to understand when and why to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is the sole source of meaning. It adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context, going beyond the empty schema. The baseline for 0-param tools is high, and this description delivers.

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 returns the complete guided workflow for using scrapedatshi tools, and specifies it should be called at the start of any conversation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific tasks like scraping or crawling.

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 explicitly directs agents to call this tool at the start of any scrapedatshi conversation to understand tool selection and pre-flight sequence. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the guidance is clear and sufficient for this type of tool.

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