aeo_serp_urls

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

Exceeds annotations by describing exact return shape, top-20 fetch limit, near_miss semantics as weak evidence, and spell content. Read-only nature is already in annotations; description adds meaningful operational details.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, it covers return structure, near_miss semantics, and spell usage well. The only notable gap is the undocumented config parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description partially explains top_n via near_miss threshold and keyword via 'keyword/prompt', but config is entirely unexplained. Fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it returns top Google organic results with rank, near_miss, and spell, distinguishing it from generic SERP tools. The output structure is explicit.

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?

Provides clear context on when near_miss should be used (refresh candidates) versus when it should not (claiming page ranks). Also mentions spell for detecting query drift, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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