Scrapfly Advanced Scraping Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about the 'full control' nature of this advanced scraping tool and the prerequisite relationship with another tool. While it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond 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 extremely concise at just 2 sentences, with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by crucial usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential 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?

Given the comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), 100% schema description coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description provides exactly what's needed. It states the purpose, gives critical usage guidance, and doesn't need to explain parameters or return values that are already well-documented elsewhere.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 26 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 as 'Scrape a URL with full control', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond mentioning one alternative; it could more clearly distinguish from 'screenshot' and 'scraping_instruction_enhanced'.

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 excellent usage guidance with explicit instructions: 'Use tool scraping_instruction_enhanced before using this tool' (prerequisite) and 'Prefer web_get_page for quick fetch' (alternative for simpler cases). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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