Google Search Light

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new context: the 1-credit-per-call cost and the fact that results are organic only. It omits rate limits, result volume/pagination behavior, and whether errors still consume credits.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the identity and followed by differentiators and cost. Slight redundancy in restating the title verbatim, but no filler and nothing buried.

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 7-parameter read tool with rich schema coverage and full annotations, most requirements are met elsewhere. The gap is that no output schema exists and the description never indicates what a result record contains, which matters because the `fields` parameter asks the agent to project specific nested fields.

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 every one of the 7 parameters is already documented with examples (country codes, lang_ delimiters, dot-notation for fields). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ("Scrape lightweight Google Search results via API") plus a scope qualifier ("organic results only"). It distinguishes itself from generic search by being fast/cost-efficient, but never names the sibling google_search or google_search_ai it is meant to be chosen over, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

'Fast, cost-efficient, organic results only' implies the usage context (cheap, high-volume, non-paid results) and the credit cost tells the agent the budget impact. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus the many sibling search tools listed, and no stated preconditions or exclusions.

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