SerpApi search (table)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are organic, the table is sortable/searchable, it renders in the conversation, and it depends on MCP Apps support. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and sibling relationship; the second gives the usage condition. Every clause 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?

For a thin wrapper around `search`, the description covers purpose, differentiation, when to use it, and the parameter relationship. Annotations cover read-only safety, and there is no output schema to document. It only lacks explicit handling of what happens when the host lacks MCP Apps support, and its parameter semantics depend on the parent tool.

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 schema has a single opaque `params` object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'Same params as `search`' adds meaning by reference and tells the agent to reuse another tool's parameter definitions, but it does not enumerate or describe those parameters, leaving the payload underspecified.

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 tool's behavior: it returns organic results as an interactive, sortable/searchable table rendered in the conversation. It explicitly positions itself as a 'variant of `search`', which distinguishes it from the sibling tool without needing to open any schemas.

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 gives a concrete use condition: 'Use when the host supports MCP Apps and the user wants to browse results visually rather than read JSON.' It points to the alternative `search`, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or address the `search_dashboard` sibling, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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