Gemini Structured Tool

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no latency/cost context, no indication that the schema parameter materially changes output shape, no note about how model selection affects results. It essentially restates the tool name.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and free of padding. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than 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 annotations cover safety. But for a tool with 4 parameters, a model selector, an optional schema constraint, and many overlapping siblings, the description omits everything an agent needs for correct selection. It is not adequate to the tool's complexity.

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 four parameters (model, prompt, schema, use_google_search) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 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 verb ("Get") and a resource ("structured JSON output from Gemini"), so the core purpose is discernible. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling generation tools (gemini_query_tool, gemini_extract_tool, gemini_summarize_tool), which likely also return text/JSON from Gemini. The distinction that this tool constrains output via a schema is implied but never made explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gemini_query_tool or gemini_extract_tool, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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