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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return fields (title, URL, snippet, source, domain) and supported targeting/filter options, giving a solid overview. However, it omits potential behavioral nuances like rate limits, blocking, or how the AI Overview affects results, so it is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence provides distinct value: what it does, what it returns, and what features it supports. No 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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values by listing result fields. It covers core capabilities and parameter behavior. Minor gaps include lack of explicit pagination behavior beyond the schema's pages parameter and no detail on how the optional AI Overview is represented, but these are minor for a search tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes features (country/language targeting, time filters, city geo) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already documents. It adds no extra detail on parameter formats or edge cases, so it meets but does not exceed 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 clearly states the core function with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web (Google organic results).' It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifying 'Google organic results' and listing output fields, which differentiates it from platform-specific searches like search_reddit or search_news.

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?

Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit. The description focuses on what the tool does and its features, but does not state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks clear 'when to use vs when not to use' direction.

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