findIt_google

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('metadata and optionally raw content from top results'), which is useful, but says nothing about authentication/API key requirements, rate limits, or cost/latency differences between 'basic' and 'advanced' depth that the schema alludes to.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return behavior. The phrase 'with enhanced parameters' is filler that doesn't earn its place, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does partially (metadata + optional raw content). However, for a 7-parameter search tool with no annotations, it omits key operational context such as result source restrictions and how 'include_raw_content' affects output size.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema (query, time_range, max_results range, search_depth, include/exclude domains, include_raw_content). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the phrase 'enhanced parameters', so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Performs a web search using Google Programmable Search Engine') which is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling findIt_scrap, though it never names that sibling directly. The addition of 'enhanced parameters' is vague and adds no discriminating power.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling findIt_scrap (search vs. fetch a specific page), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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