google_api_search

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns method IDs and parameters specifically for invoking via google_api_call, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and the API list is the main source of length. It is somewhat long but each element is relevant; the list could arguably be trimmed but serves as documentation of valid aliases.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the workflow (search then call via google_api_call) and the scope (APIs covered), which is adequate. It lacks explicit pagination or return format details, but maxResults and 'method ids + parameters' partially cover that.

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 describes query and api but not maxResults. The description adds a comprehensive list of valid api aliases, providing meaningful guidance for the api parameter that the schema lacks. However, maxResults semantics are still inferred from the name and schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: searching the Google API Discovery index for Workspace REST methods, including those without dedicated tools. It distinguishes itself from the sibling discover tools by covering all APIs listed, and the phrase 'with no dedicated tool here' explicitly differentiates its broader scope.

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 when to use this tool: when a method may not have a dedicated discover tool, and it explains how results feed into google_api_call. However, it does not explicitly state to prefer the dedicated per-API discover tools when available, so it provides clear context but not explicit exclusions.

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