Ask Gemini

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses that Gemini has no tools and no web access, cannot see the conversation, consumption of Google AI Pro quota, and a content-policy restriction. It does not describe the shape of the response or any latency/rate behavior beyond the quota mention.

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?

Three dense sentences, zero filler, with the identity/scope statement front-loaded and the hardest constraint (no conversation visibility) before the model default and the data-policy limit. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 2-param, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool this covers the essential decision inputs: scope, alternatives-by-implication, required context in the prompt, and content restrictions. The only soft spot is that it never hints at what comes back (single text response, no streaming/citations), which matters slightly more given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains why `prompt` must be self-contained ('Gemini cannot see this conversation, so include the full context') and reinforces the enum rule for `model`. That is value beyond the schema text.

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+resource ('Ask Gemini directly') and immediately bounds it with '(no tools, no web)', which separates it from gemini_research (web-grounded) and gemini_read/gemini_image without needing the sibling schemas. An agent can route to it confidently.

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?

Enumerates concrete use cases (second opinions, rewrites, quick reasoning, critique of a plan or draft), gives a model-selection rule ('Flash by default; use pro only when the user asks'), and states a firm exclusion ('Personal content only — never work code, client or customer data'). That is explicit when-to-use plus when-not.

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