google-web-search

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses billing ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other operational aspects like rate limits, authentication, or result structure. The mention of three output types (results, knowledge panel, related keywords) adds some context, but more could be said.

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 two short sentences, no wasted words. The core purpose and billing information are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to address how parameters interact (e.g., cursor pagination), default limits, or what the response object looks like. The description only hints at the 'related_keywords' parameter. More detail on API behavior (e.g., 'use cursor to page through results') would be needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description should compensate. While 'related keywords' echoes the 'related_keywords' parameter, the description does not explain what any parameter does, including 'cursor' or 'limit'. The only clue is that 'related keywords' is both a result type and a parameter. This is insufficient given the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get web search results, knowledge panel and related keywords'. This provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('web search results') with additional outputs listed. Although no siblings are present, the purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 usage is implied by the description: one would use this when needing web search results. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it compares to alternatives (e.g., other search tools). The simplicity of the tool makes the omission less critical, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use context beyond the obvious.

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