google_serp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without detailing rate limits, auth requirements, result format, or pagination behavior. The phrase 'page limit' is ambiguous and does not clarify how results are paginated.

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 description is a single succinct sentence with no filler words. It effectively communicates the core action, though 'page limit' is slightly imprecise.

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?

The description is minimal but provides the basic purpose. However, without an output schema, it does not explain return values, and it lacks context for selecting this tool over the similar 'web_search'. For a two-parameter tool, it is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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?

Both parameters (query and limit) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'page limit' adds negligible meaning beyond the schema's 'limit' description, but does not conflict.

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 description specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'Google search results', clearly stating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'web_search' or 'google_places', so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'web_search'. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, so the agent has no context for tool selection.

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