Google Search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses engine behavior beyond the schema: 'auto (HTTP cepat, fallback browser bila diblokir)', forced proxy pool, and direct browser modes, plus the note that news pagination slices an RSS feed. It omits any statement on rate limits, blocking risk, or auth needs, and is partly written in Indonesian, which weakens the disclosure.

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 core claim is front-loaded in sentence one, and the following lines are terse, non-redundant param notes that each add information. Language mixing (Indonesian parentheticals) slightly undermines readability, but nothing is padded.

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. Given 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description fills the most important gaps (tab, page, num, engine) but leaves gl/hl undocumented and gives no sibling-routing guidance, so it is only adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It documents tab (9 enumerated values), page (1-10 with news caveat), num (per page), and engine (4 modes with explanations) – solid value. But query, gl, and hl receive no explanation at all, leaving locale/language behavior undocumented.

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 lead sentence gives a specific verb+resource (search) and states the defining scope: 'One search tool for all Google tabs + pagination (pages 1-10).' This meaningfully distinguishes it from the tab-specific siblings (google_web_search, google_image_search, etc.) by framing itself as the consolidated option. However, it never explicitly says the relationship, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 tab list and page range imply coverage, letting an agent infer this tool can substitute for the dedicated per-tab siblings, and the engine note hints at blocking/fallback scenarios. But there is no explicit 'use X instead when...' guidance, so the choice between this and google_web_search / google_news_search must be guessed.

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