google_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful information by specifying 'organic web results' (excluding ads) and general scope, but it does not discuss pagination, result format, or any limitations. It provides some context beyond a simple tautology, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and clearly states the purpose. It is concise and avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple search tool with 7 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage guidance. It does not explicitly mention return value details, but the schema covers parameters and the primary behavior is clear. It is complete enough for basic selection and invocation.

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% – all 7 parameters have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies. It neither improves nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 'Search Google and return organic web results' – a specific verb plus resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like google_news, google_shopping, and google_scholar by emphasizing 'organic web results' and listing use cases (general questions, current events, fact-checking, authoritative pages).

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 explicitly says 'Use this for general questions, current events, fact-checking, and finding authoritative pages on any topic.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools. The sibling list implies specialized alternatives, so it earns a 4.

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