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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context on top of them. It says nothing about the caching behavior implied by no_cache, the output modes implied by json, rate limits, or auth. Notably it is silent on the destructiveHint=true annotation, which is surprising for a search tool and would benefit from explanation.

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?

A single, compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the trigger condition, though the trigger phrasing is slightly indirect compared to a direct 'this tool does X' statement.

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 7-parameter, open-world scraper tool with no output schema, the description does not convey what is returned, how Google AI Mode results differ from a plain google_search result, or how the json output modes affect the response. The schema documents inputs well, but the description leaves the agent without enough context to choose this tool confidently among ~80 siblings.

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 every parameter (q, gl, hl, json, uule, location, no_cache) is already fully documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at location/country/language control, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: obtaining AI search results via Google AI Mode, and controlling them by location/country/language. It is written as a trigger condition rather than a direct statement of function, and it never distinguishes itself from the many overlapping siblings (google_search, chatgpt_answer, bing_search, duckduckgo_search, yandex_search).

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?

It gives a when-to-trigger condition ('when the user needs AI search results via Google AI Mode'), which is implied usage guidance. However, the second clause about location/country/language applies to nearly every search sibling and does not tell the agent when to pick this tool over google_search or chatgpt_answer. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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