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 behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing credits but does not explain any side effects, rate limits, required authentication, or what occurs on failure. For a search tool that returns data, there is no note about pagination or result limits.

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?

Under-specification: the description is too brief to be considered concise because it omits essential information. It is not front-loaded with useful content; it merely repeats the title and adds a billing note.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter description, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain what the agent can expect from the tool or how to use it appropriately. For a tool with a single parameter, more context is needed.

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?

The schema includes a parameter 's' with a title 'search term' and an example, but the description does not add any further meaning. With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description could have easily clarified the format or semantics, but it does not. The schema itself provides some clarity via the title and example, so a baseline 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 is extremely vague, just 'image search' which merely restates the title. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., image URLs, metadata) or how it differs from sibling tools like web search or favicon retrieval. The verb is weak and the resource is not clearly defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only additional info is about billing, which is not about usage context.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions billing cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') and omits details about result format, response behavior, authentication, or side effects.

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 and not verbose, but the phrase 'web search' is redundant with the title. The billing note is useful, though the missing punctuation and lack of a complete sentence reduce clarity.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only one minimal line of description, the tool is underspecified. The billing cost is disclosed, but what the search returns and how to use it correctly are not covered, leaving an AI agent without enough context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 's' parameter. While the schema title 'search term' and example 'python learning' help, the description itself adds no parameter-meaning context beyond the schema.

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 is 'web search', which simply restates the title and adds no verb or specific resource context. It does not explain what the tool actually does beyond the title, making it essentially tautological.

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 about when to use this tool over the sibling tools get_api_v1_images or get_favicon. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only mentions billing per call, not what the tool does, its return format, or any side effects. The agent is left completely in the dark.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The word 'favicon' is uninformative, and while billing information is useful, it does not compensate for the missing functional description.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, input, or output, leaving essential context entirely absent.

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?

The schema has one parameter 's' with title 'url' but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the title, failing to explain what the URL is used for or its format.

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 is just 'favicon', which restates the title and doesn't use a verb or specify a resource. It fails to state what the tool actually does, such as retrieving a favicon for a URL.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of the sibling tools or any context for appropriate usage.

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