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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: it is free, results are excluded, and it covers every search made via this server or the API. It stops short of describing pagination semantics beyond the schema's cursor field.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scope before the usage guidance, and every clause carries information (field list, cost, failure recovery). It is a single dense paragraph, slightly heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (ID, engine, keyword, device, location, etc.). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (date, limit, cursor, status) are fully documented in the schema with format, defaults and bounds. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (lists the account's searches), adds scope (most recent first, no results) and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by routing to get_serp_results instead of re-searching.

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?

Explicit when-to-use cases: to find IDs ('the last 10 searches', 'today's searches') and specifically after a google_search or google_maps call failed, timed out or lost its answer. It names the alternative (get_serp_results) and the reason to prefer it (searches were already created and paid).

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