get_google_guidelines

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: the tool is free, requires no API key, and the data is scraped weekly. However, it lacks details on rate limits, output format, or any potential limitations.

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 concise, with three short sentences that front-load the core purpose, then provide usage guidance and additional context (free, no auth). No wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It could mention the expected output format, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select and invoke.

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?

The single parameter 'category' is fully explained. The description states its default is 'list', it can be used to list categories, and enumerates all available categories. This goes beyond the input schema, which only provides a default and no enum descriptions.

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 it retrieves Google Search developer guidelines, specifies the source (scraped weekly from developers.google.com), and lists available categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_url_structure or crawl_website, which focus on specific analyses.

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 explains to use category='list' to see all categories and provides a list of available categories. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context of sibling tools implies this is for guidelines retrieval, not for other tasks.

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