search_serp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'normalized', and says nothing about the format-dependent behavior (html vs xml changing n_results semantics), region defaults, or rate/cost characteristics. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is thin added value.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise — but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. It reads like a label, not a usable instruction.

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 10-parameter tool with mode/format branching and non-obvious interplay between format and n_results, the description is far too sparse. Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), nothing tells the agent about the html-vs-xml tradeoff or the sync-only mode constraint that the schema only hints at.

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 already documents all ten parameters including enums-in-prose (desktop|phone|mobile|tablet, html|xml). The description contributes no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb+resource: it performs a web search and returns normalized Yandex SERP data, explicitly splitting 'ads' from 'organic results'. That distinguishes it from sibling tools like wordstat.top_requests or the direct.* reporting tools. It stops short of five because the phrasing is clipped and doesn't clarify scope (e.g. web-only vs. other Yandex surfaces).

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 of prerequisites (Yandex Search API credentials, region config), and no named alternative among the ~130 siblings. An agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and the sentence fragments.

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