aio_check

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly lists outputs (aio_present, answer text, cites, top organic results) and implies a read-only operation. No contradictions or hidden effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by output summary and use case. No redundancies or filler.

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?

Explains return values (helped by output schema existence) but does not clarify how optional parameters like location or hl affect AIO retrieval. Lacks details on required vs optional inputs beyond the schema.

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 0%, but description only mentions 'query' implicitly via 'Run a Google search' and provides no details on location, hl, gl, or google_domain. This fails to compensate for the low 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?

Clearly states 'Run a Google search via SerpAPI and parse the AI Overview block,' specifying the action and resource. It also describes return values and use case ('track which pages Google's generative answers actually source'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like claude_query or gemini_query.

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?

Gives a use case ('Use this to track which pages Google's generative answers actually source') but does not exlicitly state when to avoid it or compare to alternatives like aio_citation_check or other search tools.

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