serp_google_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns the complete JSON response preserving all fields and warns about additional credits for number >10. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or error handling. This is adequate but not comprehensive for an unannotated 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?

The description is well-organized with Args, Returns, and Example sections, making it easy to scan. However, it redundantly repeats the schema's parameter descriptions, extending the length without adding much new information. The example is useful, but the duplication lowers the efficiency.

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 (8 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return format, and an example. The only notable omission is the lack of guidance on sibling tools, but the description is otherwise complete for effective use.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters. The tool description largely duplicates these descriptions, but adds a concrete example and a credit warning for the 'number' parameter. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states 'Search Google and get structured results using the SERP API' with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates search types (web, images, news, etc.), distinguishing it from generic API tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the specialized sibling tools like serp_google_images or serp_google_news, so it misses the full 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized sibling tools (serp_google_images, serp_google_news, etc.). It implies generality through the search_type parameter but does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or when to choose a sibling. This lack of comparative guidance leaves the agent to infer usage.

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