List captured search results

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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by explaining what each kind's results contain (position/title/URL vs position/merchant/price) and that ordering is newest-first by default. It is silent on pagination mechanics and the limit ceiling, which would have added more.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the kind variants, then the filters and default ordering. No sentence is filler and nothing important is buried at the end.

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 9-parameter list tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description does most of the necessary work: it defines the resource, the kind variants and their payloads, and the filtering dimensions. The remaining gap is pagination and the organization/project scoping parameters, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the load. It covers kind (both enum branches explained), trackedQueryId, dateFrom/dateTo including the expected YYYY-MM-DD format, and the default of sortOrder. It leaves organizationId, projectId, limit and offset unexplained, including the 1-100 range and pagination intent.

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 names the resource precisely (captured search result pages for a project's tracked queries) and disambiguates the two kinds, 'serp' and 'shopping', spelling out the fields each returns. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_ai_responses or list_keyword_listings, though the verb 'list' itself comes from the name rather than the description.

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?

It states the two filtering axes (one tracked query, or capture date as YYYY-MM-DD) and the default ordering, which implies how the tool is meant to be used. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never names a sibling alternative, so usage is only implied.

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