search_google

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses tab lifecycle behavior: it opens a task tab or reuses the task's tab and never the user's focused tab. However, it does not describe return behavior, wait conditions, or failure modes.

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 definition is front-loaded and compact, with the core purpose stated before behavioral details. The phrase 'More the single most important items' is awkward and slightly reduces polish, but otherwise the structure is efficient.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering scope, browser context, tab handling, and query quality. It leaves some gaps around what the tool returns after the search, but for a browser-action tool in this sibling set, it is largely sufficient.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for the required query parameter. It does so by explaining that the query should be human-like, concrete, not vague or overly long, and focused on the single most important item. The optional intent parameter is left to its schema description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the query in Google.' It also scopes the tool to a real Chrome browser via the OctoLimb extension, distinguishing it from generic URL navigation or page-reading siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit condition: 'use only when the task requires acting on a real website.' That is clear usage guidance, but it does not name or compare against alternative sibling tools such as go_to_url or run_recipe.

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