arsenkin_result_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: no new paid calls, completeness scoped only to the selected view, and selection behavior for repeatUrl/repeatHost versus cluster records. It does not mention side effects or persistence, but the disclosed traits go well beyond the schema.

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?

Three concise sentences lead with the main purpose, then provide the view-to-record mapping and key caveats. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers purpose, view mapping, scope limitations, and cost behavior, and an output schema exists. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, it still omits format values, max_rows behavior, and result_pointer syntax, leaving an agent to guess on several invocation details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the view parameter's semantics and references result_pointer as a saved-result JSON pointer. However, job_id, format, and max_rows are left entirely to their names and defaults, with no value guidance or syntax details.

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 creates SERP URL/host frequency or cluster tables from a saved-result JSON pointer, and explains which view selects which record type. It differentiates itself from raw result retrieval or export through the 'table' and 'selected view' framing, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 actionable context: it operates on a selected saved-result view, completeness is limited to that view rather than the whole provider task, and no new paid calls are made. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over arsenkin_get_result or arsenkin_export_result, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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