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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that the operation is live and that output is summarized. It says nothing about latency, rate limits, cost, result count, or failure behavior of an external Google call.

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 action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description at least signals that the return is a summary rather than raw links. But with no annotations and no parameter documentation, key details an agent needs to invoke it well are missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'query' parameter is typed only as a string with no description. The tool description says nothing about what form the query should take or whether modifiers/operators are supported, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource ('Run live Google search') and adds that results are summarized, so the agent knows this retrieves fresh web results rather than canned data. It does not, however, differentiate from the sibling search__converse or the research__* tools, leaving the agent to infer which search surface to pick.

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 'live' hints that this is for current/real-time information, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among search__converse and the research tools. The agent gets no routing guidance.

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