serpent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('structured organic results, answer boxes, and related searches') which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or pagination behavior that would be helpful for a search 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core functionality and constraints, while the second specifies the return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential 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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks details about error handling, rate limits, provider differences, or what happens when no results are found. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain more about the return structure.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. While the schema documents parameters, the description clarifies that providers are 'serpbase or serper' (matching the enum) and that results include 'organic results, answer boxes, and related searches' - giving semantic meaning to the search operation that the schema alone doesn't provide.

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 the specific action ('Search Google'), identifies the resource ('via a configured third-party provider'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for Google searches only, unlike 'search_academic' or 'search_github'. It provides verb+resource+scope differentiation.

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 description implies usage context by specifying it's for Google searches via particular providers, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_academic'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving some ambiguity about provider selection.

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