get_search_engines_data

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

The description indicates a read operation, which is consistent with the tool's name and purpose. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or how missing data is handled. The output schema exists, partially compensating for missing return value details.

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 a single, efficient sentence of 10 words that conveys the core functionality with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It lacks details on how filters interact, expected output structure (though output schema exists), and how it differs from similar tools. More context would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter's purpose is already defined in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves sessions and users data from search engines with optional filters. It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource, which is distinct from some siblings that focus on other sources or metrics. However, it could be more precise about what 'search engines' encompasses and what specific data is returned.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools like get_traffic_sources_types and sources_summary, the agent lacks information to decide which tool is appropriate for a given task.

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