Search results (SERP)

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

Discloses the two backends (SerpAPI with key, DuckDuckGo fallback) and the 'source' field in output. However, lacks details on rate limits, key availability consequences, or error cases. Without annotations, the description does a reasonable job but could be more thorough.

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 with no filler. Front-loaded with core purpose, then adds behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Output is described (URLs, titles, descriptions, positions, source field), which is adequate given no output schema. Missing details on result limit enforcement, pagination, or data format, but the tool is simple and the description covers the essentials.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 organic search results (URLs, titles, descriptions, positions) for a keyword, distinguishing it from sibling tools fetch_page (single page content) and pagespeed (performance metrics).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus fetch_page or pagespeed. The fallback behavior is mentioned but not contextualized as a consideration. The agent is left to infer usage from the description alone.

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