google_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (JSON or raw HTML via html=true), mentions the credit cost (5–10 credits), and notes the underlying provider (Scrapingdog). These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but that is inherent in a search tool.

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, each adding distinct value: purpose, output, and key capabilities/cost. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and contains no redundant filler.

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 complexity (14 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides essential context: return format, features, credit cost, and provider. It lacks explicit information about rate limits, error handling, or dependency on external API availability, but it is sufficient for a typical 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% with detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters. The description adds minimal extra semantics, only referencing html=true and mobile results which are already in the schema. The credit cost mention is useful but not tied to parameter names.

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 tool runs a Google search via Scrapingdog (/google), specifying the exact resource and action. It further enumerates the output types (organic results, ads, knowledge graph) and distinguishes it from sibling search engines like bing_search or duckduckgo_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?

The description implies usage for Google-specific search needs by naming the search engine directly. It also highlights capabilities (localization, pagination, advanced filters, mobile) that inform when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives, such as 'use bing_search for Bing results.'

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