scrape_apollo

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the long asynchronous operation and the return of a runId. However, it does not mention any potential rate limits, costs, or destructive implications (e.g., if scraping might consume credits).

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, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage advice, and return value. No redundant information, well front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (runId) and the async pattern. It could mention that runId can be used with check_run_status, but the context is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond stating the tool uses a search URL and returns a runId. Schema coverage is 100%, so no extra burden on 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 clearly states the verb (scrape), resource (leads from Apollo.io), and method (using a search URL). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like scrape_apollo_filters by specifying the input is a full search 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?

Provides explicit timing (11-48+ hours) and advises using webhooks instead of polling. Does not explicitly contrast with alternative Apollo scraping tools, but the guidance is clear for this tool's context.

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