serp_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are current, truncated to the top 20 organic entries, and sourced from the DataForSEO provider. It says nothing about cost, rate limits, or whether non-organic result types (ads, knowledge panels) are excluded.

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 core purpose and the top-20 caveat are front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The provider tag is a small but relevant addition; nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read-only tool this covers input semantics and result shape in broad terms. However, with no output schema, the description never states what fields a result carries (rank, URL, title, snippet) or whether there is any pagination, leaving return-value expectations partly unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does it well: keyword is explained with a realistic example query, and location_code is identified as a Google Ads location code with the default 2840 mapped to 'United States'. Only minor gaps remain, such as where to look up other location codes.

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 and resource ('Get current Google search results for a keyword') plus scope ('top 20 organic results'), so an agent knows exactly what the call returns. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as aeo_serp_urls or ai_citation_check, which is why it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the plain SERP-retrieval call while other tools handle citation checking or URL discovery.

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