Google Search

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses credit consumption (1 per successful call) and the free tier limit (1,000 searches/month), which are behavioral traits. However, it omits rate limits, error handling, or any destructive behavior potential. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a list of result types and cost details. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 has no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining the return format, but it only says 'structured JSON results' without details (e.g., pagination, fields). It does provide free tier and credit context, which is helpful. Overall adequate for a simple search tool but missing return structure.

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 a minor extra note for the 'type' parameter ('Use 'shopping' for product prices') which slightly enhances understanding beyond the enum. No other parameter details are added beyond schema descriptions.

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 the tool searches Google and returns structured JSON via SERPJET, listing 10 supported result types. This provides a specific verb (search) and resource (Google) with scope (10 types), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

No sibling tools are provided, so explicit alternatives are absent. The description does not specify when to use or not use this tool, but it does mention the free tier and credit usage, which indirectly informs usage decisions. Lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusion cases.

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