Search Google and read the top results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds real context beyond them: the response composition (AI Overview, per-page Markdown, organic title/URL/snippet) and the cost model (one request plus one per page read). It stops short of noting auth, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

Three sentences, fully front-loaded with the action and the return shape before the usage hint and billing note. Every clause carries information; the docs link earns its place as a reference.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing returns (AI Overview, Markdown pages, snippets) and pairing that with the billing model. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including min/max bounds. The description restates the `results` default and cap but adds nothing about `proxy_country` or query formatting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 compound verb (search Google + read top results) and the exact resource, and crisply describes what it returns. The 'in one call' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the search-only and fetch-only siblings like google_search and fetch_markdown.

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 it to answer a question from the live web" gives a clear use context, and the compound nature of the tool implies when it beats a plain search. However, it never names an alternative such as google_search or fetch_markdown, nor states when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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