SerpMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by mentioning that results beyond 10 may incur additional credits (cost implication), that it returns complete JSON responses, and that it preserves all available fields. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, returns, example) and appropriately sized. However, the parameter documentation is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the description could be more concise by focusing only on value-added information beyond what's already in the structured fields.

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's complexity (7 parameters, specialized search types), the description provides complete context. It explains the tool's purpose, documents all parameters (though redundant with schema), specifies the return format, includes an example, and mentions cost implications. With an output schema available, it doesn't need to detail return values further.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description's Args section largely repeats what's in the schema with minor formatting differences. It adds minimal value beyond the structured schema, earning the baseline score for high 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a Google search using the SERP API and returns structured JSON results. It specifically distinguishes this general search tool from its specialized siblings (images, maps, news, etc.) by mentioning it can perform multiple search types and returns complete API responses.

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 context about when to use this tool (for Google searches with various search types) and includes an example. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly compare it to the specialized sibling tools (serp_google_images, serp_google_maps, etc.), which would have earned a perfect score.

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