xmlstock_serp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses that each request is paid, empty results are still billed, depth>10 is paginated with each page as a separate paid request, and device=mobile restricts returned fields. It also reveals the mapping of safeSearch to filter and the behavioral differences of yandex_xml (no SERP features, additional result fields).

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 long but information-dense; every clause contributes operational details (pricing, limits, field behavior, parameter applicability). It is structured with semicolons and logical groups, though one paragraph is a bit sprawling. Given the complexity, the length is justified, but a tighter organization with bullet points could improve scannability.

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?

The tool is complex (3 engines, 17 params, pagination, cost implications, fields differences), and the description covers all critical aspects without an output schema: it explains the full return structure, empty-result behavior, pagination, device restrictions, yandex_xml-specific fields, and parameter mappings. This is complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 82%, the description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: depth is explained in terms of pagination and per-engine limits (up to 30 for google/yandex, 1000 for yandex_xml), region works for all engines and maps Yandex IDs, and safeSearch's off/moderate/strict maps to different underlying parameters. It also clarifies that engine=yandex_xml changes the meaning of multiple parameters (device, searchDomain, etc.) making them not applicable.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Слепок выдачи Google/Yandex через XMLStock' (snapshot of Google/Yandex results via XMLStock), clearly stating the tool's purpose. The detailed return structure and mention of engine variants (google/yandex/yandex_xml) distinguish it from sibling tools like xmlstock_images, xmlstock_news, and xmlstock_video.

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 provides clear usage context, including when to prefer yandex_xml (official API, up to 100 results per paid request) over the live yandex engine, and explains that SERP features/packs are absent in yandex_xml. It also notes device=mobile limitations and lists parameters that are not applicable in certain modes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for non-SERP searches, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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