Web search

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses cost (1 credit base, no multipliers), caching behavior via the expiration parameter, and localization options. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but given the lack of annotations, it provides significant behavioral insight.

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 brief and well-structured: outputs, cost, caching advice, localization. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague statements.

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 description covers output structure, cost, caching, and localization. It does not mention error responses or pagination limits beyond max_results, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's clarity, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use expiration (0 for always-live, default reuses cached SERPs) and highlighting localization parameters (country, subdivision, city, language, display). This context goes beyond the 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 performs Google search and returns structured JSON results including organic results, AI overview, and 'people also ask' questions. It distinguishes from siblings (account_status, ai_chat_completion, web_fetch) as the only search-specific tool.

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 provides usage tips for localization and caching but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like web_fetch or state when to use this vs other approaches. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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