get_serp_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that results are 'live' Yandex output, implying a read-only network fetch, but it does not disclose rate limits, caching behavior, failure modes, or whether results are snapshotted or transient. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and lists returned fields without fluff. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its place and is appropriately sized.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide enough operational context for an agent to call the tool correctly. It names outputs but leaves region semantics, relationship to the many sibling tools, and behavioral caveats unaddressed, so it is not complete enough.

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 only 33%: only 'n' is documented. The description mentions 'по одному запросу' but does not explain the 'query' or 'region' parameters, their formats, or how they affect results. With coverage this low, the description should compensate and does not.

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: it returns live Yandex SERP data for a single query, and enumerates the returned fields (positions, domains, titles, URL depth, page counts). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_position_history, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 phrase 'по одному запросу' implies this tool is for single-query live SERP retrieval, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_positions, track_query, or find_serp_competitors, and offers no exclusions.

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