search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: Gemini may issue multiple searches, synthesizes a 500-1500 word summary, includes source URLs, and output is not raw search results. This meaningfully enriches the agent's understanding.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a 'Use for' list, and behavioral notes. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though phrases like 'Google Search grounded research' and 'synthesizes a comprehensive answer' are slightly redundant, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description effectively covers the return behavior: a synthesized summary of 500-1500 words with source URLs and citations. It also explains the multi-search behavior and the role of maxResponseLength, fully equipping an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, including the meaning of 'query' and 'maxResponseLength.' The description only adds that maxResponseLength adjusts the summary length, which is already in the schema. Thus it adds little beyond the structured data, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Gemini searches the web using google_web_search and synthesizes a comprehensive answer.' It also provides concrete use cases (current events, API references, verifying facts) that distinguish it from siblings like 'query' and 'structured.'

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 includes an explicit 'Use for' list that tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, such as current events, documentation lookups, and verifying facts. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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