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

The annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it uses an external API but does not disclose further behavioral details such as rate limits, network dependencies, or potential result variance.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy or irrelevant information. It clearly communicates the action, the method, and the expected output format.

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?

The description provides essential context: it performs a search, uses a specific API, and returns JSON with organic results. While there is no output schema, the description gives enough shape for a typical search-result response and the parameter schema fills in the remaining details.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The schema itself adequately documents keyword, proxy_country, and pages_to_check.

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 runs a Google search via the ScrapeUnblocker API and returns organic results as JSON. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_html or list_elements, which are more generic scraping/list operations.

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 when Google search results are needed and specifies the output format, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or mention limitations. There is no direct alternative comparison.

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