Gemini Search Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful fact that results are grounded via Google Search, but says nothing about latency, cost, citation behavior, or freshness of results beyond that.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action is stated first. It is arguably too terse for a search tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 described, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. What is missing is routing context in a sibling set crowded with search-adjacent tools, leaving the agent to guess when this is the right choice.

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% for both parameters (query, model), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or model-selection guidance (e.g. when 'flash' vs a stronger model matters), leaving it at the baseline for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the web') and adds the mechanism ('Gemini with Google Search grounding'), which an agent can distinguish from URL/file-analysis siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from adjacent search-like siblings such as gemini_deep_research_tool or gemini_query_tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether a factual lookup should go here or to deep_research, analyze_url, or query_tool.

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