Content Analyze

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: it names the underlying model (Gemini), states that structured output is used for reliable JSON, and discloses the default response schema. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or size limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the hard input constraint before the implementation detail about Gemini and output_schema. No filler, though the model-name detail is the least load-bearing sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 6-parameter, zero-required tool, the description covers the input-exclusivity rule, the default schema, and how to override it. It omits practical limits (file size, supported PDF scope, URL fetch failures) but is otherwise sufficient to call the tool 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 baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning the schema cannot express: the mutual-exclusion rule among file_path/url/text (all three are independently optional with null defaults in the schema). It also clarifies that output_schema overrides the default ContentResult shape, and that instruction drives what gets analyzed.

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 (analyze) and enumerates the accepted resource types (file, URL, text), which is more precise than a bare name restatement. However, it never differentiates itself from near siblings such as content_extract, content_batch_analyze, or video_analyze, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives one real operational rule — 'Provide exactly one of file_path, url, or text' — which is genuinely useful invocation guidance. It stops there: no when-to-use conditions, no guidance on choosing this over content_extract/content_batch_analyze, and no mention of when to supply a custom output_schema versus accepting the default.

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