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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the result fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about result caps, pagination depth, or rate/credit costs.

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?

Two compact sentences: scope and return shape first, the scrape_url routing second, parameter summary last. No filler and nothing buried behind preamble.

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, naming the returned fields is the right compensating move, and the scrape_url exclusion closes the main ambiguity. The remaining gap is pagination and result-count behavior, which the description leaves entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters including the enum sets, page, and results. The description's 'Required: query. Optional: country, language' recaps only three of the five and silently omits page and results, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and is mildly incomplete as a summary.

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 and resource ('Find pages with Google organic results') and enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, snippet, position), which separates it from content-fetch tools. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent search siblings like search_news or google_ai_answer, so an agent must still reason about which search variant fits.

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?

Explicitly carves out the boundary 'Not page contents (use scrape_url)' and names the alternative, which is the most likely confusion for a search tool. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over google_ai_answer or the other vertical search tools.

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