search_google

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention localization and organic results, but it omits other behavioral traits such as rate limits, proxy usage, pagination behavior, or any nuance about the result format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word contributes: 'Run', 'Singapore-localized', 'Google search', 'gl=sg', 'return organic results'. No fluff or 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a 2-parameter tool: it leaves 'num' unexplained, gives no usage guidance, and provides sparse behavioral context. An agent would need to guess what 'num' means and what limitations the Singapore-localized search might have.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain the 'query' or 'num' parameters at all; 'num' (likely result count) is completely opaque. The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('Google search'), and adds a clear differentiator: 'Singapore-localized (gl=sg)' and 'return organic results'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_url and rotate_ip, which serve entirely different purposes.

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—when you need Google search results—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Siblings are clearly different, so the context is implicit rather than explicit, fitting 'implied usage'.

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