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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that the guide covers parameters, examples, and best practices, which is modest added context for a zero-param read tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the text is short. The trailing 'Returns:' block largely restates what the output schema already conveys, which is minor redundancy but not bloat.

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?

For a zero-param, read-only guide tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool is and what it yields. Nothing critical is missing, though a hint on when to prefer it over the specific SERP tools would complete it.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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: retrieves a usage guide for the Google SERP tools, and clarifies its content (parameters, examples, best practices). It is clearly distinct from the sibling search/list tools by function, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs orientation on the SERP tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no alternative named (e.g. calling a specific list tool instead).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond them—no pagination behavior, no rate/credit notes (which live only in schema param text), and 'returns structured image results' is redundant with the existing output schema. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral value.

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 short but structurally wasteful: the second sentence ('Performs a Google Image search and returns structured image results') largely repeats the first without adding new information. Size is fine, but one of two sentences does not earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, for a tool sitting among nine search-related siblings, the total absence of routing guidance leaves a meaningful gap for correct tool selection.

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%, with each of the 6 parameters (query, page, number, country, language, image_size) fully documented including defaults, credit warnings, and enum options. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Search Google Images') and notes it returns image results, so the purpose is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like serp_google_search or serp_google_videos, relying entirely on the tool name to distinguish it. The two sentences are near-synonymous, adding redundancy rather than clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use image search versus the sibling search tools (web, news, videos, places), no mention of prerequisites, quotas, or credit implications beyond what the schema notes. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond annotations: no note on rate limits, credit consumption (relevant given the schema's credit warning on the 'number' param), or result structure.

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 text is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence ('Performs a Google Maps search and returns structured map results') is largely redundant with the first and earns little of 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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and a full annotation set, the structured fields carry most of the burden, so the description is minimally adequate. However, with a crowded sibling set (google_search, google_places, google_images, etc.), the absence of any routing guidance leaves a real 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 all five parameters (query, page, number, country, language) are already documented in the schema, including the credit caveat on 'number'. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states the verb (Search) and resource (Google Maps locations), but it largely restates the title 'Search Google Maps' and adds only 'returns structured map results' as new information. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling serp_google_places, which also performs location-oriented search, so the boundary between the two is left implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as serp_google_places or serp_google_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the appropriate context purely from the tool name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no mention of credit costs (which the schema's `number` param hints at), rate limits, or how open-world results behave.

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?

Very short, but the second sentence is pure redundancy of the first, so it fails the "every sentence earns its place" test. Not verbose, just non-informative.

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 full schema descriptions, annotations and an output schema, the structured data covers most of what an agent needs. The description is adequate but contributes nothing toward disambiguating this vertical from its many siblings.

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% with per-parameter descriptions for query, number, country, language and time_range, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing, leaving it at the baseline.

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 verb+resource ("Search Google News") is clear, but the second sentence merely restates it as "structured news results." Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like serp_google_search or serp_google_videos beyond the word "News."

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 guidance on when to choose this over serp_google_search or other verticals, and no mention of query construction or time_range usage patterns. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: no mention of credit consumption for large result pages (which the schema hints at), rate limits, or result-set behavior. The one sentence about returning structured results is essentially a restatement of the purpose.

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?

It is short, but the second sentence ('Performs a Google Places search and returns structured place results') largely restates the first and the title rather than adding information, so not 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return shape, the description only needs to establish scope and routing. It establishes scope adequately but omits the disambiguation against serp_google_maps, which is the main informational gap for this tool family.

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 all five parameters (query, page, number, country, language) are already documented with defaults, ranges, and formats in the schema. The description supplies no additional parameter meaning, which lands it at the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and a specific resource (Google local places and businesses), which distinguishes it from generic web search siblings like serp_google_search and serp_google_news. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, serp_google_maps, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between a places lookup and a maps lookup.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite the sibling list containing several overlapping search tools (serp_google_search, serp_google_maps) whose selection criteria an agent would need. Usage is only weakly implied by the resource name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the credit-cost caveat on 'number' above 10 and the fact that the complete unfiltered JSON response is returned.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and clear, but the Args section duplicates the schema descriptions nearly word-for-word, padding length without adding information. Given 100% schema coverage, that block does not earn 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still notes the full JSON response is preserved. Combined with the enum options and defaults, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sibling-routing gap keeps this from a 5.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The Args block largely restates those same descriptions verbatim and adds almost no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search Google and get structured results using the SERP API') and is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many overlapping siblings like serp_google_news, serp_google_images, serp_google_places, and serp_google_maps, which it partially duplicates via its own search_type enum.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. Critically, the search_type enum ('news', 'images', 'maps', 'places', 'videos') overlaps directly with dedicated sibling tools, and the description offers no rule for choosing between them. An agent is left to guess whether to call serp_google_search(search_type='news') or serp_google_news.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — the second sentence merely restates the first, and it omits useful operational context such as credit costs for large `number` values (which only appears buried in the schema).

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?

Sized appropriately and front-loaded, but the two sentences are near-duplicates ('get video results' / 'returns structured video results'), so the second sentence does not earn 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?

With an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety and openness, the definition is nearly complete for a simple search tool. The only meaningful gap is the absence of credit/cost behavior, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 pagination, result count, country and language are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter guidance or defaults, which is acceptable but unremarkable given full schema coverage.

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 Videos and get video results.' An agent can tell this is the video vertical of a SERP search family. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like serp_google_images or serp_google_news, though the name largely does that 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling search verticals, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and title, which is below the 'explicit when/when-not' bar.

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

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

Annotations already cover the key safety profile: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds a brief note about the returned table, but does not disclose additional behavioral details beyond annotations and the output schema.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The first two sentences are somewhat repetitive, which keeps it from being maximally concise.

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?

For a simple no-parameter list tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned and why the codes are useful.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-argument reference tool.

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: list country codes for Google search. The scope is clear and distinct from sibling list tools such as serp_list_languages and serp_list_search_types.

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?

Explains that the codes can be used to localize search results, giving clear context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the reference-list purpose is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds the useful qualifier 'commonly used' (implying a non-exhaustive subset) but otherwise repeats the return content that the output schema already carries.

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 and short, but the second sentence ('Shows common language codes that can be used to get results in specific languages') largely restates the first, so a third of the text earns nothing. The Returns block duplicates the output schema on top of that.

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?

For a trivial zero-parameter lookup with full annotations and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing; the description states scope and result shape, and the structured fields cover the rest.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema description coverage is 100% and the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4.

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 — listing language codes for Google search — so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't differentiate itself from the closely named siblings (serp_list_countries, serp_list_search_types, serp_list_time_ranges), but the name plus description together are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: consult this when a search needs a language parameter. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer a sibling list tool, and no note that the codes feed other tools' parameters.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the response is a table of search types with descriptions, which the output schema already conveys; it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as caching or rate limits.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Shows all available search types and their use cases') restates the first rather than adding new information, so one of the four lines is largely redundant.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with a rich output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essential what and why. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly, though a pointer to the follow-up search tools would make it fully self-sufficient.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. No misleading parameter guidance is present.

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 ('List all available Google search types') and the payload it returns (search types with use cases). It is distinguishable from the sibling list_* tools by resource, but the description never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

'Use this to understand which search type to use for your query' gives a clear selection context — it is the discovery step before serp_google_search. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g., versus serp_get_usage_guide).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that a table of codes and meanings is returned, which is minor additional context beyond the annotations and output schema.

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 first two sentences are largely redundant ('List available time range filters' vs 'Shows all time range options'), and the explicit 'Returns:' line duplicates information the output schema already provides. It is short but not tightly front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with a full output schema and clear annotations, the description supplies enough context to invoke it correctly, though the redundant returns statement leaves a little to trim rather than an actual 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to compensate for at the parameter level.

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 ('List available time range filters for Google search'), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools such as serp_list_search_types, serp_list_countries, or serp_list_languages. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings beyond the differing resource noun.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says the options 'can be used to filter results by date,' suggesting this is a discovery/lookup call, but it never states when to call it or when another tool is preferable. No prerequisites or sequencing guidance is given.

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