Google Shopping Search

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 discloses the returned fields but says nothing about the scraping implications, rate limits, blocking/anti-bot behavior, or auth requirements. The engine options hint at fetching trade-offs but without explanation.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the resource and output fields stated first. The parenthetical reference to another tool is somewhat cryptic but does not bloat the text.

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?

With 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should compensate but largely does not. An output schema exists so return-value detail is excused, but the near-total absence of parameter and behavioral context leaves the definition under-specified.

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% across 6 parameters. The description adds value only for engine (listing auto|http|proxy|browser, which the schema lacks) and tbm=shop; gl, hl, num, start, and query remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Scrape) and resource (Google Shopping, tbm=shop) plus the returned fields (title, URL, snippet), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like google_image_search or google_news_search. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest siblings beyond the resource name.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions. The only cross-reference is a vague pointer to google_web_search for engine behavior, which is not usage guidance.

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