serp_results

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about returning top 20 organic results and the location_code default, but doesn't disclose response format, pagination, or any rate limits. This aligns with the annotation, no contradiction.

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 extremely concise, opening with a clear purpose statement followed by a brief Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with annotations and default parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, key arguments, and defaults. The lack of an output schema is acceptable, but the unexplained 'config' parameter and absence of any note about result format keep it from 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies keyword (with example) and location_code (Google Ads location code with default). However, the 'config' parameter is left entirely unexplained, and no description is given for the return value format. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but omits one parameter.

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 verb 'Get' and specific resource: 'current Google search results for a keyword (top 20 organic results).' It also narrows the scope to top 20 organic results, distinguishing it from broader tools like web_research_tool or keyword_research.

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 implies usage for retrieving live Google organic results for a keyword, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_research_tool or keyword_research. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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