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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete behavior: returned fields are limited to link/title/snippet, pagination is possible via page, and each call costs 5 points. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core function and output shape. The bilingual repetition (English and Korean) adds minor redundancy, but it is compact and includes only useful operational notes like pagination and cost.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with full parameter documentation, the description covers the required keyword, optional page paging, and result fields. It does not detail edge cases like empty results or error formats, but those are not necessary for correct selection and invocation.

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 both keyword and page are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a small amount of extra context about using page to navigate result pages, which is helpful but not essential.

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 names a specific verb ('return'), a clear resource ('Google web search results'), and the exact output fields (link, title, snippet). The 'keyword' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling image/lens search tools like google_image_search and google_lens_search.

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 implies usage through the keyword-search framing and gives pagination guidance with page, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling differentiation is left to the reader.

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