Google search results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information that results are organic-only and returned as structured JSON via a third-party unblocker service, but says nothing about rate limits, blocking, cost, or failure modes for that external dependency.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and output format front-loaded and the usage hint second. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema.

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?

For a 3-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete; the only gap is that with no output schema the description does not sketch what the structured JSON contains beyond 'organic results'.

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 100%, so keyword, proxy_country and pages_to_check are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond hinting that results are organic; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (run a Google search) plus the mechanism (ScrapeUnblocker) and output shape (organic results as structured JSON). It positions itself against the fetch_* siblings by framing itself as a URL-discovery step, but does not distinguish itself from search_and_read or the other search-family siblings.

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?

'Use this to discover URLs before fetching them' gives a concrete when-to-use and implicitly chains to the fetch tools. There are no explicit exclusions, so an agent still has to infer whether to pick this over search_and_read or google_shopping.

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