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 does add useful context about the response format (paragraphs, headings, lists, images, citations) and session continuation, but it omits details about rate limits, authentication, or potential side effects. The added transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output, followed by essential continuation guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is zero filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity and absence of output schema/annotations, the description covers the core input (prompt) and output structure explicitly. It also explains conversational state via session_token. Minor gaps remain, such as optional parameter behavior or error handling, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states; session_token is mentioned in both, but no new semantics (e.g., formatting, constraints) are introduced in the description.

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 ('Send a prompt') and resource ('Google's AI Mode') and clearly defines the output (structured conversational reply with reply_parts and reference_links). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing conversational context and structured citations, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 tool provides usage context by describing how to continue conversations via session_token, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over sibling search tools like search_web. Usage is implied rather than stated with alternatives or exclusions, so it only partially meets the bar for clear guidance.

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