Google Web Search

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description adds the higher-value behavioral facts: Google rate-limits this endpoint, rapid repeats should be avoided, and blocked results can be routed to an RSS-based tool. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and earns its place. The engine block is a dense pipe-delimited list mixing English and Indonesian, which is harder to parse than a clean enumeration would be.

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. The description covers blocking behavior and engine modes, but leaves the locale/pagination parameters (gl, hl, num, start) undefined, which is a gap for a six-parameter tool.

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 schema documents none of the six parameters. The description does explain the `engine` values (auto/http/proxy/browser) in useful detail, which is the most complex parameter, but gl, hl, num, start, and query remain completely unexplained anywhere.

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 Web Search) plus the exact payload returned: organic results, featured snippet, related searches. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like google_news_search, google_image_search, and google_scholar_search.

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 real operational guidance: engine mode selection (auto/http/proxy/browser) and a rate-limit warning with an alternative ('switch to an RSS-based tool') when blocked. However, it never tells the agent when to prefer this over the sibling google_search, and the guidance is partly in Indonesian, reducing accessibility.

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