google_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral details: it returns a synthesised answer, resolves Google's opaque redirect URLs, and expands the user's input into multiple queries. It also discloses billing and hourly cap, which go beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with key return details and usage constraints. 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?

With 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (answer, sources with real URLs, expanded queries) and the billing constraint. This is complete for 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: for 'query' it advises 'Plain language works better than keywords'; for 'resolveUrls' it explains the trade-off between speed and domain attribution. This improves parameter understanding.

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 'Search Google and get an answer with its sources,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from any siblings (none provided).

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 mentions 'A billed API call, subject to an hourly cap,' which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but there are no sibling tools to differentiate from.

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