Google Status

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 real value beyond that: Google-side rate limiting, the meaning of a blocked result, remediation steps, and the diagnostic payload returned (proxy pool, cache, cooldowns, counters).

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool reports, the second front-loads the operational constraint and remedy. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero parameters and an output schema already present, the description only needs to convey purpose, rate-limit behavior, and failure handling - all of which it does. An agent has everything required to call it and interpret a blocked result.

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?

The tool takes no parameters and the schema is fully covered, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline applies; the sentence about blocked results usefully explains result-state semantics rather than argument 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+resource: a health check of which Google endpoints are reachable from the current IP, and enumerates the returned diagnostics (proxy pool, cache, cooldowns, forensic counters). This cleanly distinguishes it from every search/crawl sibling in the list.

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?

Gives concrete when-not-to-do guidance - 'avoid rapid repeats' and, when blocked, 'wait or switch to an RSS-based tool' - which names a fallback class. It lacks an explicit positive trigger (e.g. 'call this first to diagnose reachability before running a search'), so it stops just short of a full when/when-not pairing.

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