search.extract_google

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It mentions extraction and optional file saving, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what exact data is extracted, or any side effects beyond saving. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 very short (two sentences) but lacks necessary detail like parameter explanations and usage context. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity; it under-specifies rather than being concise.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, plus two undocumented parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot reliably determine how to use this tool correctly without more information.

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%, yet the description does not explain the parameters. Only 'saveDir' is implicitly referenced via 'save to .txt files', but 'limit' is completely unexplained. The description adds almost no value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it extracts standard Google search results from the current page, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like browser.extract_text or other extract tools, missing an opportunity to clarify uniqueness.

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 implies usage on a Google search results page but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.

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