get_dataforseo_serp_baidu_organic_fetchDescription of the fields for sending a request:
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | task identifier unique task identifier in our system in the UUID format you will be able to use it within 30 days to request the results of the task at any time |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Task identifier in UUID format"New value: +"task identifier unique task identifier in our system in the UUID format you will be able to use it within 30 days to request the results of the task at any time"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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.