Google Ai Mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: it discloses the result shape (answer + sources) and the important operational trait that AI Mode pages almost always require JS, so engine=auto will select the browser. Rate limits, auth needs, and latency are not covered, but the JS/engine caveat is genuinely useful.

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 purpose and output shape are front-loaded, and the engine note is separated into its own block. It is compact and largely waste-free, with only minor redundancy around the engine explanation.

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 detailed, and the engine/JS behavior is covered. However, the locale parameters gl and hl are undocumented in both description and schema, leaving a real gap for a 4-parameter 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 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the engine parameter's valid values (auto|http|proxy|browser) and their behavioral implication, but leaves gl, hl, and query entirely undocumented, so its coverage is partial.

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 names a specific resource and mode (Google AI Mode, udm=50) and states the output type (synthesis answer + sources) and intended use (direct questions). It distinguishes itself from generic search siblings by emphasizing synthesized answers rather than link lists, though it never explicitly names a contrasting sibling.

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?

It implies usage with 'cocok untuk pertanyaan langsung' (suitable for direct questions), which signals when this tool fits, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative. The engine reference to google_web_search is a helpful pointer but does not route between the two tools.

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