spider_scrape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no note that premium proxy/stealth modes may carry cost or latency, no authentication or Spider Cloud credential requirement, no rate limits, and no statement of what happens to the page content when store_data persists it remotely. The three 'advanced options' named are capabilities rather than behaviors.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the qualifiers follow. It is efficient, though it spends its back half listing three features that the schema already documents, which is space that could have bought usage guidance.

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 16-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, this is thin: nothing about the default markdown return, nothing about cost or credential prerequisites, nothing about how it differs from the five sibling tools. An agent can call it, but cannot confidently choose it over spider_crawl or predict what comes back.

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 schema itself carries a per-parameter description for all 16 fields (js, anti_bot, css_selector, timeout bounds, return_format default markdown, etc.), so the schema does the heavy lifting even though the reported coverage signal reads 0%. The description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond echoing the js, anti_bot, and extraction options already named in the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Scrape content from a single URL') and enumerates the capability areas: JavaScript rendering, anti-bot bypass, content extraction. This separates it from the plural-scope siblings (crawl/search), but it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as spider_crawl for multi-page work or spider_screenshot when an image is wanted. The word 'single URL' is the only implicit routing signal, and it is embedded in the purpose statement rather than framed as a decision rule.

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