search_everything

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results come back as a dictionary keyed by search type and gives per-category limits (1-20), but says nothing about request cost/latency of aggregating five sources, rate limits, result ordering, or pagination.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns blocks are easy to scan. It loses a little by restating schema defaults verbatim, but there is no padding or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and all four parameters are covered in the description. What is missing is behavioral context an agent would want for a fan-out search: relative cost versus the single-source siblings and how results are ordered or truncated.

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 0%, so the Args block does real work: it marks query required, supplies the 'us-en' region default, the 1-20 range and default of max_results_per_type, and enumerates safesearch values ('on'/'moderate'/'off') that the schema itself does not constrain. Only the region code format is left unexplained.

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 (search) plus an explicit scope: all sources at once, enumerated as text, images, videos, news and books. That enumeration is exactly what separates it from the per-source siblings (search_web, search_images, search_news, etc.), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

'Search all sources at once' implies this is the aggregate alternative to the per-source tools, but the description never says when to prefer this over search_images or search_web, nor that it costs more because it fans out to five sources. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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