spidra_check_scrape_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what the job statuses mean (in-progress vs terminal), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It is concise without being under-specified.

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?

For a simple status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the trigger condition and lists status categories, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and expected result. It could optionally describe the return format, but the status list implies 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter jobId, with a description 'The scrape job id' in the schema itself. The tool description adds nothing semantically beyond repeating 'by jobId', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks the status of a scrape job by jobId, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spidra_check_batch_status and spidra_check_crawl_status by explicitly targeting 'scrape job' status.

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 gives an explicit condition: 'Only needed when spidra_scrape reported that its wait window was exceeded.' This provides clear when-to-use context, but it does not name alternatives like spidra_check_batch_status, so it falls short of a full 5.

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