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 genuinely new behavioral context not in the structured fields: a 6-credit cost breakdown (4 base + 2 sync surcharge, +2 for a state), which also signals the call is synchronous. It omits latency/timeout behavior.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: capability first, use case second, cost last. The geo-targeting scope is front-loaded and the pricing is placed where an agent deciding whether to call it will see it.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so at a summary level (answer plus cited sources, brand/source mentions). It also flags cost and points at list_countries/list_states via the schema. The shape of the sources array and the effect of the `include` flags on the response are not described.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by tying the optional state parameter to a concrete cost impact ("a state adds 2"), which the schema does not state. The nested `include` payload flags are left entirely to the schema, but that is acceptable given full coverage.

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 (submit a prompt), a specific target engine (Google Gemini), and the return shape (answer with cited sources). It is clearly distinguishable from scrape_chatgpt/scrape_copilot by engine, but it never differentiates itself from the closely-related scrape_google_ai_mode sibling, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

"Use this to see how Google Gemini answers a prompt and which brands/sources it mentions" gives a concrete selection scenario, and the credit pricing helps an agent weigh it against cheaper siblings. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or a direct pointer to scrape_google_ai_mode / scrape_google as the alternative.

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