search_ai

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses CAPTCHA detection and handling, the visible browser prompt for CAPTCHA solving, stealth mode, and optional file saving. It doesn't cover rate limits or persistence, but the key behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Bullet points efficiently list features, and the note about CAPTCHA is well-placed. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (markdown with citations and source list). It covers the main behavioral aspects needed for an agent to invoke the tool safely. Some details like error handling or exact source list structure are omitted, but the description is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining file saving behavior (timestamp and sanitized filename) and the CAPTCHA prompt interaction with headless mode, enhancing understanding beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 the tool searches Google AI Mode (udm=50) and returns an AI-generated summary with citations. It specifies the exact resource and action, making it distinct and unambiguous. Even without sibling tools, the verb and resource are specific and complete.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and when it would be appropriate (searching Google AI Mode). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the lack of siblings and the specific use case make the context sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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