get_search_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or how results are structured (e.g., pagination, included fields). The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and each phrase earns its place.

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 low complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks details on the return format, error handling, or limitations. An agent would benefit from knowing what the fetched results contain (e.g., titles, URLs, snippets) and any restrictions on query length or frequency.

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 already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond the schema, listing the engine options and mentioning 'specified queries' without elaborating on format. According to the guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not provide significant additional meaning.

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 action ('Fetch search results'), the resources ('Google, YouTube, or YouTube channels'), and the input ('specified queries'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search' or 'run_youtube_search' by explicitly listing the supported search engines.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search', 'run_youtube_search', or 'get_google_news'. It lists the three search engines but does not explain the differences or provide scenarios for choosing one over the other.

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