yandex_serp_get_result

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and the description names the payload contents (provenance metadata and normalized SERP output). However, it does not address side effects, error behavior, retention, or whether the result is cached or generated on demand.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and the main verb is front-loaded. It earns its place by naming both output categories. It could be slightly more informative without being bloated, but as written it is 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?

The input schema is minimal and an output schema exists, so the return structure is covered elsewhere. However, the description omits the relationship to the broader yandex_serp flow (prepare, submit, status) and does not explain how job_id is obtained or validated. For a simple getter this is workable but not fully complete.

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 needed to compensate, but it never mentions job_id or explains how the job_id relates to the returned data. The single parameter is self-descriptive by name, but the description adds no connection between the input and the output. This is a meaningful gap for an agent selecting parameters.

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 action and resource: 'Return raw provenance metadata and normalized Yandex SERP output.' It communicates a specific retrieval verb and the kind of data returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from yandex_serp_status, but the 'raw provenance metadata and normalized output' wording implies result retrieval rather than status checking.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus siblings like yandex_serp_submit or yandex_serp_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether a job must be completed or submitted first. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name and sibling names.

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