AIsa SERP — Other Engines

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: independence of items (one failure doesn't cancel others) and per-call billing. These are not derivable from annotations and help the agent set expectations.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The action and limit are front-loaded. The phrase 'tool-router's batch_use' is redundant since it restates the tool name, but it's a minor flaw. Overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 annotations covering destructive behavior and an output schema presumably describing results, the description covers the key operational aspects: concurrency limit, independence, and billing. It doesn't mention error reporting formats, but those likely live in the output schema. It is sufficiently complete for a batch tool.

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 the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific details. The calls parameter's description already explains the structure and batching context, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 clear action (execute) and resource (operations) with a concrete limit (up to 20) and concurrency. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling 'use' for single operations, but the distinction is clear enough from the concurrency and limit. The redundancy of 'tool-router's batch_use' is minor.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'use' tool. The schema note about 'steps at the same execution_level of a plan go in one batch' is helpful, but it lives in the schema, not the description. The description only implies batching via concurrency but doesn't state when to choose it over the single-operation alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that, and the mention of downloading a CSV list is potentially misleading for a zero-parameter tool with no download capability.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, front-loading what the caller receives. The second sentence's CSV note is the only questionable content.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description adequately signals the list response. It omits any routing guidance among the many sibling reference tools, which is the main gap for a tool in such a dense family.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming the call requires no input.

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 resource ('the list of languages') matching the tool name, so an agent knows this returns supported Baidu SERP language values. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many sibling *languages tools (bing, seznam, yahoo, youtube), leaving that differentiation to the name only.

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 statement of when to call this versus the other languages/locations reference tools, nor when it is needed (e.g., before a Baidu organic request). Usage is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds little beyond that, and the mention of filtering 'when setting a task' is slightly confusing given this tool itself accepts no parameters.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, though the first sentence ('You will receive the list of locations by this API call') restates the obvious and could be tightened. Front-loading is acceptable.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description is adequate — return-value explanation is unnecessary because the output schema exists. The only real omission is explicitly tying the tool to Baidu, which the name/title supplies.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema documents everything there is to know and the description carries no additional parameter burden. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description misrepresents the empty parameter set.

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 the resource (a list of locations) but never names Baidu as the engine, relying on the tool name/title for that identification. With sibling tools like get_dataforseo_serp_bing_locations and get_dataforseo_serp_yahoo_locations, the description alone does not differentiate the tool from its siblings. The phrasing 'You will receive the list of locations by this API call' is also circular rather than a clean verb+resource statement.

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 sentence 'You can filter the list of locations by country when setting a task' implies the intended workflow (fetch location IDs to use when submitting a task), which is useful implied usage. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling languages/locations tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds zero behavioral context on top of that. It does not mention that results are available for a limited window or that a completed task is required, both of which would be useful for this retrieval step.

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 single sentence is short, but it is empty filler that conveys no information and is not front-loaded with any actionable content. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

Even though an output schema and annotations exist, the description fails to communicate the tool's basic function, so an agent cannot reliably select it over the many baidu/naver/seznam organic fetch siblings. Nothing about task lifecycle or result availability is conveyed.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema fully documents the id field including its UUID format and 30-day validity window. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which warrants the baseline 3 for a fully-covered 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 is a placeholder sentence ('Description of the fields for sending a request:') that never states a verb or resource. It does not explain that this tool retrieves Baidu organic SERP results by task id, and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like get_dataforseo_serp_baidu_organic_fetch_html or _regular. The title carries the entire meaning load.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is present. There is no hint that this is the retrieval step for a task previously submitted via post_dataforseo_serp_baidu_organic_submit, nor any indication of how it differs from live/regular/html variants among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context whatsoever – not the 7-day retrieval window, not the fact that it fetches pre-computed task output rather than triggering a new crawl, and not any error behavior for expired ids.

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?

It is short, but it is a content-free placeholder rather than a concise statement – no sentence earns its place because no information is conveyed. Brevity without substance is not a virtue here.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully documented. However, for a tool whose value depends on being selected instead of its many near-identical siblings, the description omits the retrieval-vs-submission distinction and any notion of the input/output contract, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name and title.

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% and there is a single parameter, whose UUID format and 7-day validity window are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 reads "Description of the fields for sending a request:" – a template placeholder that never states what the tool does. Only the title hints at the behavior (retrieving Baidu organic HTML SERP results by task id), and the description itself provides no verb or resource, so it cannot be distinguished from siblings like get_dataforseo_serp_baidu_organic_fetch_regular or the naver/seznam HTML variants.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent siblings (fetch vs fetch_html vs fetch_regular, and the corresponding post_*_submit tools). Nothing indicates that this is a results-retrieval call following submission of a task.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description contributes no additional behavioral context at all — nothing about the task-result retrieval model, the 30-day availability of results (which the schema mentions but the description does not reinforce), or the response characteristics. The bar is lower with annotations present, but zero added value warrants a 2.

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?

It is short, but brevity in service of nothing is not conciseness. The single sentence is filler that does not earn its place and is not front-loaded with any actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a task-result-retrieval tool sitting in a dense sibling cluster, the description supplies no context about the workflow (submit a task, then fetch its results by id) or the regular-vs-html distinction. It is effectively empty.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is well documented in the schema, including UUID format and 30-day usage window. Per the rubric, high coverage gives a baseline of 3 even with no parameter information in the description, and the description adds nothing beyond that baseline.

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 is a placeholder meta-sentence ('Description of the fields for sending a request:') that never states what the tool does. All purpose information lives in the name/title, and the description itself says nothing about fetching Baidu organic SERP results by task id. It fails to distinguish this tool from its many siblings (fetch vs fetch_html vs submit vs live).

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance whatsoever. This matters acutely here: the sibling set contains get_..._organic_fetch, get_..._organic_fetch_html, get_..._organic_fetch_regular, and post_..._organic_submit for the same Baidu engine, and nothing tells the agent when 'regular' retrieval by id is the right call.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note about the static nature of the list, caching, or what the returned codes are used for.

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?

It is a single, non-redundant sentence, so it is not bloated. But it is under-specified rather than concise – the brevity comes from saying almost nothing.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and with no parameters there is little to specify. Still, for a reference-data lookup, the description should say what the list is and where it is consumed (e.g. as a valid language filter in Bing SERP requests).

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is a 4. No parameter meaning is lost or misrepresented.

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 sentence only promises the caller will 'receive the list of languages', which restates the tool name rather than describing the operation. It never mentions Bing or SERP, so nothing distinguishes it from the sibling *_languages tools (baidu, seznam, yahoo, youtube).

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 statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisite, and no mention of the alternatives that return the same kind of list for other search engines. The sibling set makes routing guidance especially valuable here, and it is entirely absent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds only the mild context that filtering by country happens 'when setting a task,' but it does not explain the country filter itself or how results feed into task creation, and the reference to filtering is ambiguous for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core deliverable is front-loaded. The second sentence is a bit ambiguous but earns its place by hinting at the country-filter use case.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a look-up tool the agent needs to know how the returned locations relate to SERP task creation and why to prefer this list over sibling location lists; the description leaves that to inference.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so by the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description's mention of country filtering is slightly confusing since no such parameter exists on this call, but it does not misstate the schema in a harmful way.

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 it returns a 'list of locations,' which is essentially a restatement of the title/name rather than a distinct verb+resource statement. It never mentions Bing or SERP in the body, so differentiation from the many sibling 'locations' tools (seznam, yahoo, youtube) rests entirely on the tool name, not the description.

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 second sentence hints at intended usage ('when setting a task') and notes a country-filtering capability, giving implied context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names the natural alternative (get_dataforseo_serp_bing_languages) or explains why an agent would pick this over other location lists.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, but this tool's key trait is the 30-day result retention window and that it consumes a task id from a prior submit. The description says nothing about retrieval timing, expiry, or dependencies, leaving critical context only in the id field text.

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 placeholder sentence that conveys no actionable information. It is short but does not earn its place because it is empty of content rather than concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to state that the tool fetches results for a Naver task id, what the results contain, or how it relates to sibling submit/fetch variants. The definition is not complete enough for reliable tool selection.

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 the schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter including UUID format and 30-day validity. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 is a generic meta-sentence ('Description of the fields for sending a request:') that never states what the tool does. Only the name/title conveys that it fetches Naver organic SERP results by task id, so the description itself is essentially a tautology/missing purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs siblings like get_dataforseo_serp_naver_organic_fetch_html/_regular or post_dataforseo_serp_naver_organic_submit. There is no indication that this is the retrieval step after submitting a Naver SERP task.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing at all beyond that — no note that results expire after 7 days, no mention of the HTML response format, no rate or availability context.

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?

It is a single short fragment, so there is no bloat, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it conveys zero actionable information and does not front-load any purpose.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but a one-parameter retrieval tool still needs to say what it fetches and when, and none of that is present. The definition is effectively empty.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single parameter whose UUID format and 7-day retrieval window are fully documented in the schema, the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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 is a placeholder fragment ('Description of the fields for sending a request:') that states neither a verb nor a resource. An agent gets no indication that this tool retrieves Naver organic SERP results in HTML; only the title and tool name imply it.

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 distinction from the many sibling fetchers (naver_organic_fetch, naver_organic_fetch_regular, seznam/baidu HTML variants), and no mention of the submit-then-fetch task flow the 'id' parameter implies.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that — no note that the id must be a previously submitted task, nor anything about polling or result availability — so it contributes no behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single placeholder sentence that conveys no operational information. Brevity is not a virtue when the sentence has no content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the definition still omits the tool's basic function, its relationship to the submit tool that produces the id, and any usage guidance. For a fetch-by-id tool in a large family of near-identical siblings, this is completely inadequate.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema fully documents the `id` UUID requirement and its 30-day window. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 does not state what the tool does at all; 'Description of the fields for sending a request:' is meta-text about the request payload, not a description of fetching Naver organic SERP results by task id. An agent cannot learn the verb or resource from this text, and it offers no differentiation from the many sibling fetch tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_dataforseo_serp_naver_organic_fetch, _fetch_html, _fetch_regular, or the submit counterparts. No preconditions, no alternatives, no task-id validity context beyond what the schema already states.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on caching, freshness, or that the result is a static reference list.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but it is essentially content-free and does not earn its place — it conveys no information beyond the tool name. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 trivial zero-parameter lookup whose return values are covered by an output schema, the description is minimally adequate — an agent can guess what comes back. It stops short of stating the Seznam context and intended downstream use, which is the only real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 ('You will receive the list of languages by calling this API') is a tautology that merely restates the title/name rather than specifying the resource. The agent must rely on the tool name to infer that this returns the Seznam-specific supported language list, and the description does nothing to distinguish it from the many sibling *_languages tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. It never explains that this should be called to discover valid language values before invoking a Seznam organic fetch/submit, nor how it relates to get_dataforseo_serp_seznam_locations or the equivalent tools for other engines.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the call returns a list and that locations can be filtered by country later, which is minor extra context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two short sentences with no extraneous text. The first sentence is somewhat redundant (stating that the call returns locations is close to restating the name), but the overall size is appropriate and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter list endpoint with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it says what is returned and notes later filtering capability. The only missing piece is explicit Seznam-specific identification, though the tool name and title supply that context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the description's mention of country filtering is about a separate task-setting context, not this call's inputs.

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 resource returned ('list of locations') and the context ('by this API call'), so an agent knows what it fetches. However, it never mentions 'Seznam' or distinguishes this endpoint from the many sibling location tools (baidu, bing, yahoo, youtube), so the description alone does not differentiate it.

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 only usage hint is 'You can filter the list of locations by country when setting a task,' which describes a downstream use rather than when to call this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when to prefer this over the other location endpoints.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no indication that this retrieves results of a previously submitted asynchronous task, or the 30-day retrieval window (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

It is short, but vacuously so: the single sentence is filler that conveys no information and does not earn its place. This is under-specification posing as brevity, not genuine conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description still fails to say what the tool does or how it relates to the submit/live siblings. For a retrieval tool in a large family of near-identical names, that omission leaves the agent without the one thing it needs.

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 'id' parameter, and the schema already explains the UUID format and 30-day usability window. With the schema doing all the work, the description contributes nothing extra, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 reads 'Description of the fields for sending a request:' — a dangling boilerplate fragment that never states what the tool actually does. It does not even restate the name/title, so an agent learns nothing about retrieving Seznam organic SERP results by task id.

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 whatsoever, despite the presence of close siblings such as get_dataforseo_serp_seznam_organic_fetch_html and _regular, and the submit counterpart post_dataforseo_serp_seznam_organic_submit. No context, no exclusions, nothing to infer from.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context whatsoever — nothing about the 7-day result retention, HTML-specific behavior, or whether the task must be submitted first. With annotations carrying the bar, a 2 reflects that the description contributes zero beyond them.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is a dangling label that does not earn its place — it promises field descriptions that never follow. Brevity without content is under-specification, not conciseness.

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 tool embedded in a large family of near-identical SERP endpoints, the definition supplies none of the distinguishing context an agent needs. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the complete absence of purpose, usage, or task-related context leaves the definition inadequate.

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% and the sole parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema, including its UUID format and 7-day usability window. Per the baseline rule for high coverage with one parameter, a 3 applies; the description sentence adds no parameter meaning at all.

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 is a placeholder fragment — 'Description of the fields for sending a request:' — that never states what the tool does. It contains no verb, no resource, and no scope; only the tool name and title hint at retrieving Seznam organic SERP results in HTML. An agent reading the description text alone learns nothing.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. This is critical here because siblings like get_dataforseo_serp_seznam_organic_fetch, _fetch_regular, and the corresponding post_..._submit tools differ only in subtle ways, and the description gives no basis for choosing among them.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of the 30-day result window, task-completion prerequisites, or error behavior when an id is unknown or expired.

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?

It is one short sentence, so there is no bloat, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence is a placeholder that does not front-load any actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but a fetch-by-id tool in a large family of SERP siblings still needs routing context (fetch vs live vs submit, regular vs html) that this description omits entirely given its complexity and sibling density.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the UUID task identifier and its 30-day validity. The baseline of 3 applies since the description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 is a boilerplate stub ('Description of the fields for sending a request:') that never states what the tool does. Only the tool name hints at retrieving Seznam organic SERP results by task id; the description contributes no verb, resource, or scope of its own.

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 guidance about when to call this versus siblings such as get_dataforseo_serp_seznam_organic_fetch, _fetch_html, or the corresponding post_..._submit tool. The distinction between retrieving a completed task and the regular/html variants is left entirely to inference from the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no note on what the list contains, whether it is static, or whether it requires a location pairing — but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise, but it is concise to the point of being uninformative rather than earning its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to cover. However, with ~40 sibling tools including a very close neighbour (yahoo_locations) and parallel languages tools for Bing, Baidu, Seznam and YouTube, the definition gives an agent nothing to disambiguate or invoke it confidently.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies.

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 ('You will receive the list of languages by calling this API') largely restates the title without a distinct verb+resource framing, and it never mentions Yahoo, SERP, or how it differs from the many sibling language/location tools. The name and title carry the actual meaning; the description adds none.

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 guidance on when to call this versus get_dataforseo_serp_yahoo_locations or the other *_languages tools. No conditions, no prerequisites, no alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little beyond that: it says you will receive a list but not the format, pagination, or why 'filtering by country' matters for a zero-parameter call. There is nothing contradictory, but the value-add is minimal.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler and the return-behavior statement front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly misdirected (it describes filtering behavior that this parameterless call does not expose), but it is brief and not bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and with no parameters the tool is structurally simple. The description covers the minimum (you get a list of locations) but leaves the relationship to sibling listing tools and the purpose of the country-filter remark unexplained.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 and resource (retrieve the list of locations), and the tool name plus title anchor it to Yahoo SERP locations. It is clear what it returns, but the description text itself does nothing to distinguish it from the many sibling location/language listers (baidu_locations, youtube_locations, seznam_locations), relying entirely on the name.

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 only guidance is the trailing clause about filtering by country 'when setting a task', which points at a different workflow rather than telling the agent when to pick this tool over yahoo_languages or youtube_locations. No when-not or alternatives are given, so usage is largely left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on response shape, no mention that this is a static reference list, no auth or rate-limit context. It contributes zero behavioral value on top of the annotations.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted clause ordering, but 'by calling this API' is pure filler and the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter lookup needs little more. However, in a family of ~18 near-identically named language/location tools, the description omits the one thing an agent most needs: which engine's language list this returns.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline for an empty schema is 4.

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 sentence 'You will receive the list of languages by calling this API' essentially restates the tool name and title without adding a distinct verb+resource framing. It does not differentiate this from the many sibling *_languages tools (baidu, bing, seznam, yahoo) or the paired youtube_locations tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent gets no signal about when to call this versus get_dataforseo_serp_youtube_locations or the other engines' language lists.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond confirming that a list of locations is returned, with no rate-limit, auth, or format context.

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?

Two short sentences, but 'by this API call' is filler and the filtering sentence adds ambiguity rather than value. Front-loaded enough but not every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and a zero-parameter list tool is simple. Still, the description does not clarify that this is the YouTube-specific location set or how the 'filter by country' remark relates to a parameterless call, leaving a small gap.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'filter by country' does not correspond to any parameter here and reads as stray context rather than parameter documentation.

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 name and title identify this as the YouTube SERP locations list, but the description itself only says 'You will receive the list of locations by this API call', which is vague about the resource being YouTube-specific. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_dataforseo_serp_youtube_languages mainly via the tool name, not the prose.

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 only guidance is 'You can filter the list of locations by country when setting a task', which is confusing given the tool accepts zero parameters and cannot perform any filtering itself. It implies the filter is applied elsewhere but never says when to call this tool versus the languages sibling.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: it is free, stops before any spend, and explains how price.model varies (quoted, list, dynamic, composed). It also clarifies that suggested_max_price_usd has headroom. This goes beyond the annotation flags and gives the agent a clear model of what happens.

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 moderately long but well structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains the price model in a dedicated paragraph. No redundancy or filler. It front-loads the most critical information (contract fields) and then gives necessary detail about price semantics. Slightly dense but not overly verbose.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need no description. The description covers the key behavioral aspects (no spend, pricing models, max_price headroom) and clarifies edge cases like routes without a price. For a read-only informational tool, this is complete enough for an agent to use 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 parameters are already documented. The description adds some nuance, such as how arguments affect pricing and that required parameters may be needed before a price can be quoted. It also clarifies with_quote's purpose (one round trip, spends nothing). These are useful but not essential given the schema's completeness.

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 purpose: returning the full contract of one or more operations, including schemas, read_only, side_effects, price, and known_pitfalls. It clearly distinguishes this from executing operations (use, batch_use) and from discovery (search, list_categories). The verb 'get' and the noun 'details' align with the title, and the first sentence is explicit.

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 the tool is used to assess an operation before spending (e.g., 'A quote authenticates like a call but stops before any spend'), and the schema says 'One operation_id from search', hinting at a flow. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over siblings like use or search, nor does it give exclusions. The guidance is implied, not stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool is free, requires no key, and can direct users to a category-specific endpoint that lists tools directly rather than through search.

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 moderately detailed but every sentence adds useful information: output scope, cost/auth, sibling differentiation, and endpoint usage. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but remains well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the free/no-key access model, and provides the category endpoint for specialized use, leaving no essential gap for an agent 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description includes a <category> placeholder only in the endpoint examples, not as a tool parameter, which is appropriate supplementary guidance rather than a parameter-semantics gap.

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 what the tool does: it presents the AIsa catalogue at a glance, including categories, servers, tool counts, and a dedicated category endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from search by explaining that the endpoint lists tools directly instead of via search.

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 provides clear usage context: use list_categories for a catalogue overview, and use the provided endpoint when you only need one category. It explicitly contrasts with search ('instead of via search') and notes tool-router has no equivalent, although it does not exhaustively cover all sibling alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful workflow detail that results depend on a previously issued task and that the prompt must match the keyword from the POST request, but nothing about auth, rate limits, or the lifetime of the 30-day task.

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 purpose in the first sentence, then states the task_id requirement. Compact and mostly waste-free, with only the trailing 'Learn more in our Help Center' acting as mild 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description adequately covers purpose and the key prerequisite for a POST-based result endpoint, with differentiation from siblings being the main remaining gap.

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?

Context reports 0% schema description coverage at the top level, so the description should compensate, but it only names the required task_id and its source. It says nothing about prompt, fetch_content, include_links, or support_extra, though the nested schema (where the metric does not register) does document them.

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+resource: it summarizes SERP content and generates a prompt-driven AI response. Clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as post_dataforseo_content_summary_live or the various LLM-response endpoints.

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?

Gives a prerequisite (you must supply task_id found in the POST response) which implies the tool is a follow-up/result-retrieval call. However, it never states when to choose this AI-summary endpoint over the sibling summary/LLM tools, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is partly covered. However, the description omits the behavior that matters most for this tool: it queues a billable task whose results must later be retrieved via the fetch sibling, and it supports pingback/postback callbacks. None of that is disclosed.

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?

It is short and has no filler sentences, but it is not front-loaded with the action the agent needs; the lead sentence is about the API's output rather than about submitting a task.

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 non-idempotent, destructive-flagged task-submission tool with a rich nested schema and an output schema, the description leaves out the submit/retrieve lifecycle, billing implications, and required-field alternatives. Output schema existence excuses return-value detail, but the operational context is still missing.

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?

Reported schema coverage is 0% for the top-level body parameter, so the description must compensate — but it says nothing about keyword, device, depth billing, location/language required-field pairs, or callback URLs. The 'specific to the selected location' phrase is the only faint nod to a parameter, adding essentially no semantics.

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 describes what the Baidu SERP API product returns (top 10 results), not what the tool does. It never says this tool submits/creates a task, nor how it differs from the sibling post_dataforseo_serp_baidu_organic_fetch/…_fetch_regular tools. An agent reading only this text would not know the operation is an asynchronous task submission.

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 mention that this is the async 'submit' path versus the 'fetch' path, no prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool. The only pointer ('see the List of Locations') is a data lookup hint, not usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes useful behavioral context — 'real-time', 'top 100', and coverage of featured snippets and extra SERP elements — but says nothing about cost, rate limits, or that a required nested body must be supplied.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and with zero filler. Nothing is repeated or bloated, though there is room to spend a sentence on the parameters or engine identity instead of the generic second sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a live, billable, indexed SERP endpoint with a required nested request body, the description leaves the agent without engine identification, usage conditions, or parameter requirements 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 reported as 0% and the description explains none of the body fields (keyword, device, os, language/location options, the language_code-or-language_name alternation). It only vaguely references 'the specified keyword, search engine, and location', which does not compensate for the documented coverage gap.

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?

It states a specific verb+resource ('Live SERP provides real-time data on top 100 search engine results') and mentions keyword/engine/location scoping, but never says the engine is Bing and never distinguishes itself from siblings like post_dataforseo_serp_google_organic_live or post_dataforseo_serp_youtube_organic_live. An agent must infer the Bing target from the tool name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many SERP siblings. It also omits any note that this is a paid, live request rather than a cached one. The agent gets no routing help.

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

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is nominally covered, but the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever — no mention of auth requirements, per-request cost, that 'live' means synchronous and billable, or why a retrieval endpoint carries destructiveHint=true. The 'provides a raw HTML page' framing also reads as a plain read, which sits awkwardly against the destructive/non-read-only annotations; an agent gets conflicting signals and no explanation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition — appropriately sized and easy to parse. It is under-specified rather than bloated, but it earns its space without waste.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the description omits the essentials for this endpoint family: which search engine, how 'live' differs from submit/fetch/regular siblings, and any cost or auth caveats. Against ~37 sibling tools with near-identical phrasing, an agent has too little to route confidently.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is 0% (the single 'body' parameter is undocumented), so the description must compensate, and it barely does: 'keyword, search engine, and location' hints at three inputs while the real nested fields (os, device, language_code/name, location_code/name) go unmentioned. The nested schema descriptions are actually detailed, so the description's contribution is near zero and the required-vs-optional and mutually-exclusive language/location rules are left entirely to 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 outcome — 'a raw HTML page of search engine results' — which differentiates the format from the *_regular and *_fetch siblings that return structured JSON. However, it never names Bing, so it is indistinguishable from the identically-shaped Yahoo/Baidu HTML siblings, and it does not clarify live vs. task-based alternatives.

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: nothing says to pick this over post_dataforseo_serp_bing_organic_live or _live_regular, and no prerequisites (credentials, cost, rate limits) are mentioned. The phrase 'for the specified keyword, search engine, and location' only restates what inputs exist, not when this tool is the right choice.

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

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

The description describes a read-style retrieval ('provides real-time data on search engine results'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. That is a direct behavioral mismatch, and the description supplies no compensating context about cost/credits, rate limits, or what a live POST request actually does.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is appropriately sized. It is under-specified for what it needs to convey rather than bloated, which is a completeness problem more than a structure problem.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a POST-based live SERP endpoint with a required nested body and 0% top-level schema coverage, the description omits the semantics of the request object, the live-vs-task distinction, and any cost/precondition information an agent needs.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% for the required 'body' array, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only generically names keyword/search engine/location without explaining the required language_code/language_name and location_code/location_name alternatives, the device/os options, or the 700-character keyword encoding rules documented inside the nested 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 names a verb and resource ('provides real-time data on search engine results') for a keyword/engine/location, which is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this endpoint from close siblings such as post_dataforseo_serp_bing_organic_live or ..._live_html, and it never explains what 'regular' means relative to those variants.

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 the sibling endpoints an agent must choose between (live vs live_regular vs live_html, or the languages/locations lookup tools). The agent is left to infer selection purely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely beyond that by explaining that Naver results do not vary by location or language, which affects expectations about the optional fields; however it omits the asynchronous task flow (submission returns a task id later fetched) that defines a 'submit' tool.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the engine-behavior constraints are stated plainly up front. Reasonably sized for the amount of context it chooses to give.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is the submit-task pattern (async creation, pairing with fetch/get_details tools) and any description of the required body structure, which leaves the definition incomplete for an unfamiliar 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?

The description usefully clarifies that location and language variables do not affect Naver results, implicitly telling the agent that location_code/location_name/language_code/language_name need not be set. It also notes the keyword can be in any language. But the top-level 'body' array parameter (the sole required param, 0% description coverage) is not described at all.

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 talks about what the Naver SERP API is ('provides top 15 search engine results') rather than stating what this tool does. It never uses a verb like 'submit', 'create', or 'queue a task', even though the name and title say 'submit'/'Setting Tasks'. An agent learns about Naver's behavior but not the tool's action.

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 guidance on when to use this submission tool versus the sibling fetch tools (get_dataforseo_serp_naver_organic_fetch, _fetch_html, _fetch_regular) or other engines' submit tools. The note about location/language not applying is a fact about the engine, not a use/exclusion rule.

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

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, open-world call, so the safety burden is partly carried by structured data. Yet the description contradicts that framing by describing an innocuous 'capture' and adds nothing about billing, rate limits, or the 7-day result window that the schema hints at. No annotation contradiction in the strict sense, but the description undersells the operation.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise and readable, though it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 tool whose parameter is an opaque nested object with 0% description coverage, the bare one-liner is not enough. It omits the prerequisite task flow, the fact that results are retrievable for 7 days, and any return-shape context despite an output schema existing.

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 reported at 0%, and the single nested 'body' parameter is not explained at all in the description. The agent must infer that task_id comes from a prior submit call, which is essential context the description omits.

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 names a specific verb ('capture a screenshot') and resource ('SERP page'), which is clearer than the generic name. However, it leans on the endpoint name rather than stating in its own words what the tool returns, and it does not distinguish this tool from any sibling.

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 (e.g. that a task must first be submitted via a POST endpoint), and no mention of alternatives. The agent gets no routing help at all.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the Czech-only/locality constraint, which is real value, but omits the defining behavior of a submit tool — that it creates a billable, queued task rather than returning results immediately (the schema repeatedly references billing and pingback/postback callbacks).

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the subject. It is efficiently sized, but the content is marketing framing rather than the operational facts an agent needs.

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 tool whose body accepts a rich array of keyword/location/language objects and that queues a remote task, the description is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but nothing explains the async submission model, cost implications, or the required body, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 reported at 0% and the description supplies no parameter information whatsoever — no mention of keyword, location, language, device, depth, or the array-of-objects body shape. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 text describes the underlying Seznam SERP dataset ("provides top 10 search engine results") but never states the tool's action — submitting/creating an asynchronous task. It does not distinguish this task-submission tool from the sibling fetch tools (e.g., get_dataforseo_serp_seznam_organic_fetch), so an agent cannot tell from the description what this call actually does.

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 at all: no mention of submit-vs-fetch, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The statement that Seznam "supports the Czech language only" narrows scope but is not usage direction.

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

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds the 'real-time' characteristic and the location/language dependence, but omits anything about cost/billing (this is a paid live endpoint) or that the POST body accepts multiple tasks.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the location/language constraint is front-loaded. It is efficient, though efficiency here is partly because little of substance is said.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a paid, multi-variant live SERP family the definition should still clarify the advanced vs regular vs html choice, body batching, and cost implications. None of that is present.

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?

Only one top-level parameter (body) exists and it carries no description; the nested field descriptions live in the schema but the description adds nothing about the body being an array of task objects or how multiple keywords should be batched. With low top-level schema coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 restates the family name ('Live SERP ... real-time data on top search engine results') without naming Yahoo, organic results, or the 'advanced' variant it purports to be. It gives no way to distinguish this endpoint from siblings like post_dataforseo_serp_yahoo_organic_live_regular or _html.

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?

It notes that results depend on location and language and points to the 'List of Locations'/'List of Languages' resources, which loosely maps to get_dataforseo_serp_yahoo_locations/languages. It never says when to choose live vs live_regular vs fetch, nor any prerequisite about obtaining codes first.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the output form ('raw HTML page'), which is not behavioral context; it says nothing about this being a live, credit-consuming external request, auth requirements, rate limits, or why a fetch-style tool is flagged destructive.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it is also so terse that it omits information a caller needs rather than wasting space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a live external SERP endpoint with a batch array input, a destructiveHint annotation, and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves out the batch structure, cost/live-request implications, and why one would pick this over the regular or JSON variants.

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 description mentions keyword, search engine and location, loosely mapping to the nested body fields. However it never explains that the input is a batch array wrapper with a required 'keyword' and optional device/os/language/location selectors, nor the language_code/language_name and location_code/location_name alternatives. With top-level schema coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it 'provides a raw HTML page of search engine results' for a keyword, search engine and location, so an agent knows this returns raw SERP markup rather than parsed data. It is clear but does not differentiate itself from its close siblings post_dataforseo_serp_yahoo_organic_live (JSON variant) or ..._live_regular, which an agent must choose between.

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 and no mention of alternatives. With siblings offering the same Yahoo organic live query in HTML, regular and (implicitly) JSON forms, the agent gets no signal about when raw HTML is the right choice or what the trade-offs are.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, which together signal a non-read-only, potentially destructive, non-idempotent external call. The description says nothing about cost, rate limits, side effects, or the destructive/non-idempotent nature. It also does not explain that this is a live (real-time) call with resource implications, despite 'Live' being in the title. The description adds little beyond the title.

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?

It is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical differentiators, so it is not maximally effective.

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?

Given the tool is a non-idempotent, potentially destructive, live external API call with many siblings and a rich nested schema, the description is far too thin. It does not cover return values (though an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to), authentication needs, cost, or the critical distinction between this and other 'live' Yahoo variants. An agent lacks enough to confidently select and invoke it correctly without trial and error.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage but the nested schema actually contains extensive descriptions for each property (keyword, language, location, device, os). The description itself contributes no parameter meaning; it only says 'specified keyword, search engine, and location'. Since schema coverage is measured low but the raw schema text does document parameters, the description fails to add anything but the baseline for a single 'body' parameter is 4 only when the schema is empty. Here the schema has rich internal descriptions, so the description is redundant rather than compensating. A 3 reflects that the description neither helps nor harms parameter understanding.

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 and resource: 'provides real-time data on search engine results' for Yahoo. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like post_dataforseo_serp_yahoo_organic_live, post_dataforseo_serp_yahoo_organic_live_html, or even the Bing/other equivalent tools. An agent cannot infer from the text what makes 'regular' distinct or why it should choose this over an almost identically named sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set includes several nearly indistinguishable live Yahoo variants (live, live_html, live_regular) and other SEA live tools. The description does not mention when this is preferred, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's smaller burden is partly met by adding 'real-time' and 'top 20 blocks' scope. However, a data-retrieval tool described as 'providing data' sits uneasily beside destructiveHint=true, and the description never reconciles this or notes that live calls incur cost. With annotations present, a 3 is warranted.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the data scope and followed by the location/language dependency. The 'see the List of Locations/Languages' cross-references earn their place; nothing is redundant, though it could be one clause shorter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the 'top 20 blocks' note adds useful scope. Still missing for a single-nested-param live tool are the request body structure and any signal about when this YouTube SERP pull is preferred over its many siblings.

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 description gestures at the location and language settings covered by the body array, but does not explain the body-array-of-objects structure, that keyword is required, or that location_code/name and language_code/name are paired alternatives. With reported schema description coverage at 0%, it only partially compensates.

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 resource and output shape: real-time YouTube search engine results, top 20 blocks. The YouTube qualifier implicitly separates it from the many Google/Bing SERP siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly. A clear verb+resource, but not a deliberate sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the large SERP family (google_organic, bing_organic, google_maps, etc.), and no cost/quota context for a live call. It only notes that results depend on location/language settings, which is a constraint rather than usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond output content, such as API credit consumption, authentication needs, or side effects. It merely says the tool provides data.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 tool has a complex nested body with required field combinations, yet the description does not mention input structure, usage routing, or behavioral warnings. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description is still insufficient given the complexity.

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 0% per context signals. The description only says 'the video you specify in the request', which hints at video_id but does not explain the body array structure, required fields, or the location/language alternatives. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 it provides real-time comments on a specified video and details the return content (top 20 comments, author info, comment metrics). The resource is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like youtube_video_info_live or youtube_video_subtitles_live.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over related siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully clarifies the returned content (watching-page metrics and channel data). However, it never addresses the surprising destructiveHint or explains that a live POST request consumes API credits, so an agent reading destructive=true against a 'video info' description gets no reconciliation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, which is good. But the second sentence crams a return-value summary and a trailing docs link together with a lowercased 'for more info', making it slightly clunky rather than tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description does sketch what comes back. Still, for a live, billed, destructive-flagged POST tool with an undocumented top-level body parameter, the definition omits the usage and cost/permission context an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 top-level 'body' parameter has no description (0% coverage per signals), and the description adds no information about the array-of-objects request shape or its required 'video_id' field. It relies entirely on nested schema text and the external docs URL, which is not enough for a request whose payload structure is non-obvious.

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 gives a clear verb+resource: it returns real-time watching-page data (video/content metrics plus the publishing channel) for a specific YouTube video. This differentiates it from sibling endpoints like video_comments_live and video_subtitles_live by scope, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling endpoints (comments, subtitles, organic) that an agent would need to choose between. It only states what the tool does, not when to prefer it.

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

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the hill is lower, but the description adds little beyond restating return content that the output schema already covers. It never reconciles the destructive/open-world flags or notes auth, latency, or cost implications of a live call.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally efficient.

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 live endpoint with compound required constraints (one of language_code/language_name and one of location_code/location_name per array item) and a batched body, the description omits all of these. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the invocation constraints are absent.

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 description only alludes to 'the video you specify,' adding no meaning about the body array, the video_id field, or the required language_code/language_name and location_code/location_name alternatives. Reported schema description coverage is low, so the description should have compensated but does not.

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 ('provides real-time data on subtitles in the video you specify'), which is clear on its own. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as post_dataforseo_serp_youtube_video_info_live or ..._video_comments_live, so this is a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling video/subtitle variants, and no mention of prerequisites, cost, or the live-vs-task distinction. The phrase 'the video you specify in the request' is the only hint of usage, which is not enough.

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

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond annotations: search spans the entire AIsa catalogue, candidates may belong to modules other than the current one, multiple providers for the same metric are surfaced, and no API key is required. This gives the agent a clear picture of scope and output behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is dense with useful information: scope, no-auth requirement, response shape, and relationship to the catalogue. Each sentence adds operational value, and the structure makes the tool's behavior predictable.

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 complex discovery tool with output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains the response modalities, candidate fields, direct pass-through to `use`, full-catalogue search behavior, and cross-provider visibility. An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that the category parameter is not a hard boundary—search spans the full catalogue—and that queries are plain-language task descriptions, which clarifies how to use the tool effectively.

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 finds AIsa data operations across many categories via a plain-language query. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_details and use by emphasizing that search covers the full catalogue, not just the pinned category.

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 conveys when to use search: when you need to discover operations across the full catalogue, even those not in the current tools/list. It also implicitly contrasts with get_details by noting that returned candidates already include input_schema, so they can be passed directly to `use` without an extra call.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnly=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: billing per call, the BatchCallResult response shape, and the error structure with retryable status. It does not spell out side effects, but the destructive flag is already carried by annotations, so the additional context is sufficient.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, cost, response shape, and routing guidance. Key behavioral facts are front-loaded, and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and all parameters have descriptions, the tool description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers cost, return/error contracts, and how routing to this tool differs from calling pinned tools directly, leaving no practical gap.

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%, and each parameter is already clearly documented: operation_id as returned by search, search_id provenance, arguments matching input_schema, and max_price_usd as a spend guard. The description does not need to add parameter detail, so 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 opens with 'Execute one AIsa operation,' a specific verb+resource statement. The word 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling batch_use, and the closing note distinguishes it from calling pinned tools directly. An agent can tell what this tool is for immediately.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'this is the way to call anything found through search.' It also gives the alternative: 'Pinned tools in tools/list can also be called directly.' This is clear when-versus-alternative guidance with no ambiguity.

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