ai_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses credit cost and extra scoring fields returned, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, or any destructive behavior. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then cost, then return fields, then argument list. Every sentence is informative with no fluff. Highly efficient.

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 complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, parameters, cost, and return fields. It references list_locations for language and explains competitor fields. Minor gap: no error handling or output structure beyond stated fields.

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 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter (url, ia_desc, ia_kw, language, conc1-3) with examples and cross-reference to list_locations. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it is for 'AI-powered backlink prospecting (SERP + competitor + semantic matching).' This specific verb-resource combo differentiates it from sibling tools like competitor_analysis or keyword_search, which are less comprehensive.

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 mentions credit cost and argument details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on exclusions or when not to use.

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