Google Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: Google rate limiting on repeated calls, and engine-mode semantics (auto does HTTP with browser fallback when blocked, proxy forces a proxy pool, browser uses Camoufox directly).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter-by-parameter lines earn their place for a 7-param tool. The Indonesian parentheticals ('HTTP cepat, fallback browser bila diblokir', 'paksa pool proxy', 'langsung Camoufox') and irregular line wrapping hurt readability and are not universally parseable.

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 described. For a broad multi-surface search tool the description covers pagination, rate limits, and engine fallback adequately; the only real omission is the meaning of gl/hl and any explicit sibling-routing rule.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for four of seven parameters: tab (nine named values), page (1-10, news slices RSS), num, and engine (auto/http/proxy/browser with fallback behavior). It leaves gl and hl entirely unexplained, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('One search tool for all Google tabs + pagination') and enumerates the covered surfaces via the tab list. It is clear what the tool does, though it never says how it relates to the many specialized siblings (google_web_search, google_news_search, google_image_search, etc.) that appear to overlap with its tab values.

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 gives a when-not rule — 'Rate-limited by Google: avoid rapid repeats; when the result is blocked, wait or switch to an RSS-based tool' — plus guidance that page/news slices the RSS feed. However, it offers no routing advice for the obvious ambiguity: whether to use tab=web here or call google_web_search, or tab=news vs google_news_search.

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