Google Shopping Search

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: Google rate-limiting, what happens when a request is blocked, and the fallback strategy. It does not describe pagination behavior or result size, so not a 5.

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 is front-loaded in one line and the follow-on notes are short and non-redundant. Minor friction: the parenthetical is partly in another language ('lihat google_web_search') and the engine line is fragmentary, slightly hurting readability.

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 re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is complete on operational constraints and fallback, but the thin parameter coverage across 6 params is the one real completeness gap.

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, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It only hints at engine modes (auto | http | proxy | browser, deferred to google_web_search), leaving gl, hl, num, and start entirely unexplained; the agent must guess country, language, count, and pagination offset semantics.

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), a specific resource (Google Shopping, tbm=shop), and the exact return payload (product title, URL, snippet). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like google_web_search and google_image_search without needing to open a schema.

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 useful operational guidance (avoid rapid repeats, wait when blocked, switch to an RSS-based tool) but never states when to prefer this tool over google_web_search or other google_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed, so it lands at minimum-viable with real gaps.

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