Googlesearch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it names authentication requirements (signed-in gemini CLI, or GOOGLE_CSE_ID + GOOGLE_API_KEY) and describes success and error response shapes. It omits rate limits, timeouts behavior, or failure/retry characteristics, but the credential and fallback behavior is solidly communicated.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact mode list and return-value summary. It is reasonably tight, though the return-shape block partly duplicates the existing output schema and could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value detail is not strictly needed, and the mode logic plus credentials are covered. But with 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema documentation, the unexplained limit/model/timeout_s parameters leave the definition short of complete for correct invocation.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the 'mode' parameter's allowed values and the roles of cse_id/api_key, but leaves limit, model, and timeout_s completely undefined in both schema and prose.

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 specific verb+resource (search tool) and elaborates its three operating modes with concrete behavior for each. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as GeminiGoogleSearch or gemini_search, leaving the agent to guess which search tool to pick.

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 provides explicit mode-selection rules ('use gcs if both keys present, else gemini_cli') and names the credential prerequisites for each mode, which is useful decision logic. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other search siblings in the namespace, so usage is only partially covered.

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