yandex_serp_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'durable' adds a small hint that status persists across calls, but there is no detail on job states, polling cadence, or error conditions beyond what annotations supply.

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. It is efficient, though arguably over-terse for an async workflow tool where a second clause about the submit→status→result relationship would have earned 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile, keeping the burden low. Still, for a tool in an async pipeline, the description omits where job_id comes from and how this relates to serp_submit and serp_get_result.

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 should compensate for the lone job_id parameter, but it never explains that job_id is the identifier returned by yandex_serp_submit/prepare. The param name is self-explanatory, but the origin and expected format are left unstated.

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 (status for an asynchronous Yandex SERP job), so the agent knows this is a status/polling operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the obvious sibling yandex_serp_get_result, which fetches the actual results.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The word 'asynchronous' faintly implies a submit→status→result polling pattern, but the agent must infer this; nothing tells it to call this instead of yandex_serp_get_result or when the job is ready.

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