Search localized SERPs

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: job creation, API-credit consumption, caching semantics, asynchronous pending processing, and a warning that result snippets are source content, not instructions. This is strong, non-redundant behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, intended use, credit/cache behavior, forceLive guidance, pending-job handoff, and snippet provenance. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers the nontrivial operational details an agent must know: async pending results, credit consumption, caching, and snippet trustworthiness. Combined with the rich input schema, this is sufficient for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 88%, so the input schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description mentions query/location/language and forceLive behavior, but these largely restate information already present in the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning. 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?

The description opens with 'Search Google, Bing, or Yahoo organic results through GeoRanker for a query, location, and language' — a specific verb, target engines, and key inputs. It also distinguishes the tool from report-creation siblings and explicitly names get_serp_result for retrieving pending work.

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 gives concrete usage conditions: cached results do not create new searches, forceLive should be used 'only when current data is needed,' and pending jobs should be handled via get_serp_result with the returned job ID. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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