Gemini Analyze Text Tool

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that a Gemini model call is made, model options ('flash' default), latency/cost implications, or how analysis_type changes behavior. For a description this thin, the behavioral burden is unmet.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is undersized for a three-parameter analysis tool with a dense sibling ecosystem; brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than from disciplined editing.

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 return values need not be explained, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. Still, the description gives no basis for choosing this tool over its many analysis-oriented siblings, leaving the routing decision incomplete.

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 the schema already documents text, model, and analysis_type (including its enumerated values). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Analyze text with Gemini' essentially restates the tool name and title (gemini_analyze_text_tool / Gemini Analyze Text Tool), adding no specificity about what kind of analysis or what output is produced. It does not distinguish this tool from closely overlapping siblings such as gemini_summarize_tool, gemini_extract_tool, gemini_analyze_document_tool, or gemini_structured_tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative is given despite a large sibling set of analysis/summarization tools. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to reach for this tool or one of the many adjacent ones.

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