GoAI Moat Google Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly explains that the tool validates a license and mentions the effect of unlocking unlimited searches. It does not disclose whether validation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects on the license state, but for a simple validation tool this is a moderate, not severe, gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the operation and its purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does and why it matters. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying how the validation result should affect subsequent search calls, but nothing critical is missing for basic 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%, and both parameters are already described clearly in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about license_key or email beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('a license key'), then gives the purpose ('to unlock unlimited searches'). This immediately distinguishes the tool from the sibling search tools, since it is about license state, not performing a 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 that this tool should be used to enable unlimited searching, which gives useful context relative to google_search and news_search. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it state that license validation should happen before invoking search tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the tool returns organic results, but omits behavioral details such as authentication requirements, quota tracking via the email parameter, and error or rate-limit behavior. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant detail, earning its place.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks usage routing relative to news_search and check_license, and does not explain the email/quota context that the schema references. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters including query, num, and email. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search Google and return organic results.' The phrase 'organic results' differentiates it from the sibling news_search tool, making its purpose clear and distinct.

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 general web search use via 'Search Google,' and 'organic results' hints at a contrast with news_search, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus its siblings or provides exclusions. Guidance is only implicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', which gives no insight into read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, result format, or any side effects. Even though an output schema exists, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 extremely short with no fluff, which is concise, but it lacks structure and front-loading of critical information. It is a single declarative sentence that barely earns its place, falling into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description still fails to cover necessary context like usage scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., API key), or relationship to siblings. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool without additional inference.

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 all three parameters (query, num, email) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or examples for parameters, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 'Search Google News' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling google_search (general web search) and check_license (license verification). An agent can immediately infer the tool's scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not mention that news-specific queries should go here or that general queries should use google_search. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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