google_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds some value by describing the return structure (answer box, knowledge graph, AI overview, organic results), but it omits critical operational details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the API is read-only.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return format. Every sentence is informative and there is no 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to convey behavioral traits. It partially compensates by naming return features, but lacks authentication, rate limit, and scope details that an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search Google via SearchApi') and clarifies return content. It distinguishes itself by describing Google web search, but the sibling tools (google_shopping, google_jobs, youtube_search) make the implicit scope clear only indirectly; the description doesn't explicitly say 'general web search' vs specialized results.

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 is implied by the search nature and siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance compared to google_shopping/google_jobs/youtube_search. An agent might need to infer that this is for general web queries rather than vertical searches.

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