google_ai_mode

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

The description details the return format including specific fields (shopping_results, inline_images, text_blocks, references, local_results) and notes the credit cost per request. It also explains the mutual exclusivity of geo-targeting parameters. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 clear sentence followed by structured notes on parameter constraints and return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and credits. The return format details are extensive but necessary for a tool returning structured data. Could be slightly more concise.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a thorough explanation of the return structure and key parameter interactions. It covers credit costs and mutual exclusivity. However, it does not explain what 'AI Mode' entails or how it differs from other Google search tools, which would enhance completeness.

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 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of uule and location, and that country further localizes the search alongside these parameters. This additional context improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 that the tool searches Google with AI Mode enabled and returns structured results with reference sources and text blocks. It distinctly identifies the action and resource, differentiating from siblings like 'google_search' which likely returns standard search results.

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 mentions credit cost and mutual exclusivity of parameters (uule and location), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., standard Google Search or AI Overview). The context of when to prefer AI Mode over other Google tools is implied but not stated.

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