Get SERP results

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: pending-job behavior, the prompt-injection caveat ('source material, not instructions'), and the balance-reporting contract. It stops short of describing pagination or the full result payload.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the sibling distinction, then layers the pending-handling and balance rules. Every sentence is operationally relevant, though the balance/credit-unit explanation is dense enough to feel like more than one tool's worth of instruction.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry return-value burden and covers the important parts: pending responses include a job ID and the response may include balance. It omits anything about the shape of the retrieved SERP content itself, which for a read tool with 100% schema coverage is a minor gap.

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 jobId, limit, and waitMs are already fully documented in the schema, including the limit's inability to increase original search depth. The description reinforces jobId semantics ('by its job ID', 'retain the same job ID') but adds no new meaning for limit or waitMs.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (existing GeoRanker SERP search by job ID) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that creates jobs: 'This does not create another job.' An agent can tell it apart from search_serps without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: if processing is pending, retain the same job ID and re-check later, and do not call get_balance again when balance is already in the response. It never explicitly names search_serps as the way to create the job, but the workflow context is clear.

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