google-serp

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It says nothing about side effects, rate limits, data sources, or expected results, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 text is short but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It contains no content that earns its place and fails to support the tool's 4 parameters or behavior.

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, no annotations, and a 4-parameter input schema all undocumented, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine expected inputs, outputs, or whether this tool is appropriate for a task.

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 defines no parameters. The schema provides bare names (query, country, language, maxTimeout) but no meaning, defaults, or constraints, and the description adds nothing.

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 'V1 Google Local' merely restates the tool name and provides no verb or resource. It does not state what the tool does or how it differs from siblings like google_search or google_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, exclusions, or recommended scenarios are provided.

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?

No annotations are providedholpen, and the description discloses no behavioral traits, side effects, return value characteristics, or limitations. 'V1' only signals a version, not tool 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?

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. With 4 parameters and no other documentation, three words are insufficient to support correct invocation.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation. The definition fails to provide even the basic information an agent needs to understand what the tool does, how to call it, or what to expect in response.

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 all 4 parameters (query, country, language, maxTimeout) are undocumented. The description adds no meaning to any of them, leaving their formats, defaults, and purposes entirely unclear.

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 'V1 Google News' is a versioned label that simply restates the tool name. It contains no verb or action indicating what the tool does, such as fetching, searching, or listing 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings google_local and google_search. An agent cannot determine the appropriate context or selection criteria.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about rate limits, result formats, pagination, or any behavioral quirks. The description is entirely silent on 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?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structural elements like purpose, usage, or constraints. While it is brief, it fails to be appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and no other documentation.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is entirely inadequate. An agent has virtually no information to correctly invoke this tool or interpret its results.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (query, country, language, maxTimeout). An agent cannot infer parameter meanings from the description, and the schema alone with defaults of null provides minimal guidance.

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 'V1 Google Search' essentially restates the tool name without adding a verb or resource. It does not specify what the tool does, what it searches, or how it differs from siblings like google_local and google_news. This is a tautological, uninformative description.

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 alternatives. No mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent gets no help deciding between google_search, google_local, and google_news.

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