yandex_serp_submit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds that the operation is asynchronous and queues rather than returns results, which is useful context, but says nothing about the next step (polling status) or what the approval gate enforces.

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 tight sentence with the key qualifier (asynchronous, approved) front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity comes at the cost of parameter coverage, but the sentence itself is well-formed.

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 carry the safety profile. However, with 0% schema coverage on five parameters and an approval-based workflow, the description leaves the idempotency key, region default, and prepare-to-submit handoff undocumented.

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 carry the parameter burden, yet it explains none of the five parameters. "Approved" faintly hints at approval_id, but region (default 225), idempotency_key, and response_format are entirely unexplained.

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 (queue), resource (Yandex SERP request), and mode (asynchronous), which tells the agent this submits rather than fetches. It does not distinguish itself from yandex_serp_prepare or yandex_serp_get_result, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 word "approved" implies a prior approval step (likely yandex_serp_prepare) and that this is the enqueue stage, but it never names the alternative tools or states when to call this versus prepare/status/get_result. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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