google_multi_search

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

With no annotations available, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses sequential execution, anti-bot reasons, approximate timing, failure isolation via an 'errors' key, and early stop on rate_limited. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail that goes far beyond a simple operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently delivers rationale, behavior, performance expectations, and failure handling. Each paragraph earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. The structure is logical and scannable.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, performance, sequencing, and error handling, which is substantial for a multi-search tool. However, it omits any description of the successful return value (e.g., result format) and leaves 'pages' and 'personalized' undefined. Given there is no output schema, these gaps slightly detract from completeness, though the overall context is strong.

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?

The schema provides only names/types/defaults for 'queries', 'pages', and 'personalized', with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'queries' only in passing and does not explain the meaning or usage of 'pages' or 'personalized'. Parameters are left ambiguous, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run several related queries in one call.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling google_search by stating 'Prefer this when researching a topic' and explaining the multi-query nature. This is a clear, differentiated purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Prefer this when researching a topic') and explains the benefit over repeated single searches. It also clarifies the deliberate sequential execution and its rationale, giving agents a clear decision framework and behavioral expectations.

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