yandex_serp_get_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output includes raw provenance metadata alongside normalized results, but omits any behavior on a pending/failed job or whether the result is retained after retrieval.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of a fuller statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. What is missing for a job-oriented retrieval tool is the lifecycle relationship — that job_id comes from submission and when the result becomes available.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about job_id — not where it originates (presumably yandex_serp_submit) nor its format. With one undocumented required parameter, the baseline-4 zero-parameter case does not apply.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('normalized Yandex SERP output') plus the extra payload ('raw provenance metadata'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named sibling yandex_serp_status, leaving the agent to infer which one yields the finished result.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus yandex_serp_prepare, yandex_serp_submit, or yandex_serp_status, nor any prerequisite such as the job having completed. The workflow position of a result-retrieval tool is exactly what an agent needs here, and it is absent.

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