Gemini Query Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the only behavioral statement ('Supports Google Search grounding') merely restates the use_google_search parameter. Nothing about latency, cost, model differences, or refresh/caching behavior is disclosed beyond the safety hint already provided.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry the routing burden in a large sibling family.

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 the schema fully covers inputs. What is missing is differentiation from the many overlapping gemini query/analyze/search siblings, which is the main completeness gap for an agent selecting this tool.

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 model, prompt, use_google_search, and system_instruction, including defaults and the 'pro'/'flash' values. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond that, 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Query Gemini with a prompt'), so the agent knows this is a general-purpose LLM query. However, it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as gemini_search_tool, gemini_analyze_text_tool, or gemini_structured_tool, leaving the agent unable to tell which query tool fits a given need.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. 'Supports Google Search grounding' describes a capability rather than a selection condition, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling list alone.

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