google_search

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 adds useful context about query arguments and follow-up actions with other tools, but doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search results look like. It provides some behavioral insight but leaves gaps for a search tool.

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 with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, explaining query capabilities, and describing follow-up actions. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary repetition. The example is concise and illustrative.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context for basic usage but lacks completeness. It explains query capabilities and follow-up actions but doesn't describe result format, error handling, or limitations. For a search tool, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'search_term' accepts regular query arguments with examples like 'site:reddit.com' and 'after:2024-04-30', adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail all possible query syntax or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Search the custom search engine using the search term.' This specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('custom search engine'), though it doesn't distinguish from siblings since none exist. The description is specific about what the tool does without being tautological.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'Regular query arguments can also be used' and giving an example, which suggests when to use advanced search syntax. However, it lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool comparisons, and there are no sibling tools to differentiate from. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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