Google Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by revealing the request is proxied through the Decodo Web Scraping API and returns parsed JSON with organic results, but it says nothing about rate limits, credit consumption, pagination, or failure modes despite being a scraping-backed call.

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 tight sentences plus a docs URL, with the core action and return format front-loaded. Every element earns its place, though the parenthetical target name is mildly redundant with the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries some of the return-value burden and does state 'parsed results page as JSON, including organic results' – helpful but incomplete, since it doesn't describe what other result sections exist or how they are shaped. Combined with fully covered params and adequate annotations, it is minimally sufficient but leaves the agent guessing at the response structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so query, geo, locale, and jsRender are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no further meaning beyond pointing at the upstream target name; with the schema doing all the work, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Search Google through the Decodo Web Scraping API") and names the exact return shape ("parsed results page as JSON, including organic results"). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like bing_search, search, or google_ai_mode, leaving the agent to infer why one Google-flavored search tool should be picked over another.

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?

"Use it for fresh web results or Google rankings for a query" implies the intended use case, but there are no exclusions and no named alternatives despite five-plus competing search tools in the sibling list. The agent gets a hint of when to reach for it but no guidance on when not to.

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