gemini_query_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the Google Search grounding capability already present in the schema and does not explain costs, latency, response behavior, or any caveats.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It immediately states the main purpose and a distinguishing feature, making it easy to scan and consume.

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?

Even with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description lacks the context needed to choose among ~39 sibling Gemini tools. It does not explain when to use this generic query tool instead of specialized tools, and the absence of annotations leaves behavioral gaps 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the structured schema. The description adds little beyond restating the use_google_search behavior, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Query Gemini') and the input ('with a prompt'), and mentions Google Search grounding as a feature. However, it does not differentiate this generic query tool from the many specialized sibling tools that also query Gemini.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus specialized alternatives like gemini_summarize_tool, gemini_search_tool, or gemini_analyze_text_tool. The only hint is that Google Search grounding is supported, but no exclusions or explicit use cases are mentioned.

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