google_searchRun a Google search through the ScrapeUnblocker API (https://developers.scrapeunblocker.com) and return organic results as JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | The search query. | |
| proxy_country | No | Optional ISO country code to search from, e.g. 'US'. | |
| pages_to_check | No | How many result pages to collect (default 1). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it runs through the ScrapeUnblocker API. It does not mention rate limits, pagination traits, or response size, but annotations suffice for safety profile.
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?
A single 15-word sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary and no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description does not detail the JSON structure or pagination behavior. For a search tool with 3 parameters, it adequately states the purpose but leaves the return format undocumented, which is a gap for an agent.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like keyword, proxy_country, or pages_to_check. No extra guidance on formatting or use.
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 'run', the resource 'Google search', and the output format 'organic results as JSON'. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'fetch_html' and 'fetch_parsed' by specifying the source (Google) and the structured return type.
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 implies usage for obtaining Google search results but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this tool is specific to Google searches vs general web scraping from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: fetch_html returns raw HTML, fetch_parsed returns structured JSON, and google_search performs a search. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores (fetch_html, fetch_parsed, google_search).
Three tools is a reasonable count for a focused scraping API, covering core functionality without being sparse or excessive.
The set covers fetching raw HTML, parsed data, and Google search, but lacks features like custom headers, session management, or other search engines, leaving notable gaps for advanced use cases.