gemini_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that results include source citations, that groundingMetadata contains source URLs, that thinkingLevel controls reasoning depth, and that parallel calls are supported. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or fallback behavior, but the disclosed traits are substantial and genuinely informative.

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 well-structured with a short intro, a 'Features' section, and a 'Usage Tips' section. Every line provides useful information without fluff. The parallel calls note is emphasized clearly. It is appropriately concise given the number of options and behaviors covered.

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 should explain what the agent can expect in return. It does mention source citations and groundingMetadata, which gives a partial picture of the output. However, it lacks details on the exact structure of JSON output or how results are ordered/limited. For a search tool with this many options, the description is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by advising when to use thinkingLevel 'low' vs 'high' and outputFormat 'json', which directly informs parameter choice. This goes beyond simply restating the schema and helps the agent select appropriate values.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the web using Gemini's built-in Google Search grounding.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools (multimodal_query, analyze_content, analyze_codebase, brainstorm) which are not web search. The features list further clarifies its purpose.

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 provides explicit 'Ideal for' guidance (current events, latest documentation, real-time data, fact-checking) and practical usage tips for thinkingLevel and outputFormat. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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