google_api_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by describing what is returned (method ids and parameters) and the workflow it feeds into, plus the full alias vocabulary. It does not mention result caps or pagination, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Purpose and behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the alias list trailing as reference data. The ~30-item alias list is long but functional since no enum is defined in the schema; it is justifiable rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the shape ('method ids + parameters'). Combined with full annotation coverage and documented parameters, an agent has enough to invoke correctly, though result-count and ranking behavior are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 67% (api and query documented, maxResults not). The description compensates by enumerating the accepted API aliases for the `api` filter, which the schema does not provide, and reinforces the query intent with 'method ids + parameters' output framing. It adds genuine meaning over 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?

Names the specific verb and resource ('Search the Google API Discovery index for any Workspace REST method') and immediately scopes it to methods with no dedicated tool. This distinguishes it from both the per-service *_discover siblings and google_api_call, which it explicitly hands off to.

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?

Explains the discovery-to-invocation workflow ('Returns method ids + parameters to invoke via google_api_call') and that it covers methods lacking a dedicated tool, which implicitly tells the agent when a dedicated sibling is preferable. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating exclusions explicitly.

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