Citable — raw Google results page

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the per-call price, that failures are not charged, and that auxiliary sections appear only when present. No contradiction or hidden write behavior is indicated.

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?

Four short sentences each carry distinct information: cost, return shape/contents, differentiation from rank-check, and failure billing. The key facts are front-loaded, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the response contains (organic snippets, PAA, related searches) and how to distinguish the tool from siblings. Together with the fully documented input schema and annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults, bounds, and the keyword semantics. The description mostly restates that the keyword is the query and adds nothing new about parameter syntax or formatting.

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 states the tool returns the raw Google results page for a keyword, enumerating the content (organic results with snippets, People-Also-Ask, related searches) and explicitly contrasts it with rank-check ('answers where am I; this answers what the page looks like'), which clearly separates it from siblings.

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 names the key alternative, citable_rank_check, and states the decision rule: use rank-check for position answers and this for what the page looks like. It also surfaces cost and no-charge-on-failure, which helps an agent decide whether this paid tool is appropriate.

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