search_google

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and that results are 'latest information'; it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, read-only behavior, result format, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 one sentence with no wasted words: it names the action, the API used, and the intended purpose. All information is front-loaded and 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?

The tool is simple with only one required parameter, which makes the description minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not convey what the agent can expect in the response or any invocation constraints, leaving it just adequate rather than complete.

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% because the sole property 'query' is documented as 'The search query to look for.' The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web using Google Custom Search API,' and adds the purpose of finding 'the latest information.' It is clear what the tool does, though with no sibling tools it cannot differentiate itself from alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'to find the latest information' implies the tool is appropriate for current web lookups, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as API configuration. This is implied usage rather than clear routing guidance.

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