Google Search Parallel

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent), the description adds valuable operational context: provider selection via SURF_SEARCH_PROVIDER, worker pool in browser mode, cloud mode for SearchApi, and per-query failure isolation in fallback mode. This significantly enriches the behavioral model and goes well beyond annotation hints.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core function, the second details browser mode, and the third explains fallback behavior. Every sentence adds operational value, and the description is appropriately front-loaded.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the operational matrix: provider selection, modes, and fallback isolation. It lacks explicit comparison to siblings or details about environment variable configuration, but these are minor given the schema and annotations. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for a search tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by emphasizing the 2-10 query range (schema allows min 1, so the description corrects/clarifies the intended batch size) and the parallel nature. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained further than the schema, so the description does not fully compensate for any gaps, but it provides useful clarification.

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 the tool runs 2-10 Google searches, specifying the resource and action. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' by explicitly indicating parallel execution and fallback behavior. The verb 'run' and resource 'Google searches' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for batched searches but never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search' or 'scholar_search'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned. The parallel search context is clear but not framed as a decision guideline.

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