gemini_search_tool

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the grounding mechanism ('with Google Search grounding'), which hints at possible rate limits or real-time behavior, but doesn't disclose specifics like pagination, result count, or whether caching applies. The description adds some context but lacks depth regarding response handling.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes grounding detail. It is concise and structured effectively, with no wasted words. Slightly higher than minimal because it packs relevant information efficiently.

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?

A simple tool with an output schema present, meaning return values don't need description. The description, though brief, likely suffices for a straightforward search tool. However, it might benefit from noting result limits or speed, but given full schema coverage and output schema, completeness is adequate. Slightly lower because the tool's complexity is moderate (it involves web grounding which could have variants).

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description doesn't clarify how 'model' default 'flash' affects behavior or what query formats are accepted, so it adds no extra value. Given the simple schema, a 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 tool's purpose: searching the web, using Gemini, with Google Search grounding. This distinguishes it from siblings like gemini_query_tool (which likely queries Gemini without web search) and web-page analysis tools (gemini_analyze_url_tool). The verb 'Search' and resource 'the web' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: for web search needs. However, it doesn't explicitly explain when not to use it or which alternative tools to consider for other scenarios-material that could clarify choices among the many related tools.

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