Search localized SERPs

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: new jobs consume API credits while cached results do not, pending jobs return a job ID, snippets are source content rather than instructions (a prompt-injection warning), and MCP admission units are separate from provider credits. None of this is derivable from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, and none of it contradicts them (credit consumption is a cost side effect, not a data mutation).

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?

Roughly eight sentences, and the closing three about balance/credits are repetitive and awkward ('Report the returned balance... MCP admission units are separate from provider credits. Do not call get_balance again...'). The core purpose, credit, and pending-routing lines are front-loaded and earn their place, but the balance tail dilutes the definition.

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 the work of explaining returns (positions and snippets) and async handling (pending job ID), plus credit and safety caveats. It is close to complete, though it could say more about the shape of a pending vs. completed response.

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 88%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including forceLive's cache-bypass behavior and the limit/pages interaction. The description's only param-relevant line restates forceLive ('Use forceLive only when current data is needed'), which the schema already covers. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Google, Bing, or Yahoo organic results through GeoRanker') scoped by query, location, and language. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_serp_result by noting that tool is for pending jobs. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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-to-use conditions and routes to alternatives: 'Use forceLive only when current data is needed', 'If processing is pending, use get_serp_result with the returned job ID', and 'Do not call get_balance again when the response already includes balance.' Alternatives and triggering conditions are named, not inferred.

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