Search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: engine fallback order, default gl=us/hl=en, the absence of a page parameter, and a concrete cost of 1 credit per call. That credit cost is exactly the kind of fact an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

Sentences are dense and mostly front-loaded, but the opening 'Search.' is a wasted tautology and the text is cut off mid-sentence ('the response is always pag…'), leaving an incomplete clause that reads as broken rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining results and does address engine fallback, locale defaults, and cost. However, the truncation kills the pagination explanation right after asserting there is no page parameter, leaving the agent without the critical answer of how to get more 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 gl, hl, engines, fields and query are already fully documented in the input schema. The description largely restates the gl/hl defaults and the auto engine order that the schema already provides, adding no new syntax or constraints.

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 states a concrete behavior: a single call walks engines in order and returns the first organic results, which distinguishes it from engine-specific siblings like google_search or bing_search. The lead sentence is just 'Search.' and no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

It explains the default routing (engines=auto tries Google, then Brave, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, Baidu), which implies when to leave the default alone and when to pass an explicit engine list. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus the many sibling search tools, nor any prerequisites.

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