Get Search Urls Samples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a 50,000-record cap, which is real behavioral context about result volume, but it says nothing about permissions, whether data is a snapshot, or pagination behavior (which is only in the schema). The single cap is helpful but not sufficient for a data-retrieval 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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource and wastes no words. The parenthetical cap is the one piece of extra information and is appropriately brief.

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 the cap is mentioned. But with four parameters and many overlapping siblings, the description lacks the context needed to decide when this tool is the right one and what guarantees the samples carry.

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 all four parameters (limit, offset, host_id, user_id) are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (samples of pages in Yandex search results), which is clear on its own. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like get_search_urls_history, get_search_urls_events_samples, or get_indexing_samples, leaving the agent to guess which sampling tool is appropriate.

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 sibling tools, no mention of prerequisites such as host verification, and no indication of the time window or state the samples reflect. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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