gemini-search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's an AI agent with search grounding, returns responses with cited sources, and handles natural language queries. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or specific limitations like response format or error handling.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's core functionality and key features. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (AI agent with search grounding), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output format, error handling, or advanced usage, which could be important for an AI-driven tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'query' with a clear description. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'natural language query' and use cases, but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: an AI agent powered by Gemini 2.5 Flash with Google Search grounding for finding latest information, troubleshooting, researching, and discussing ideas. It specifies the verb ('search and analyze') and resource ('information from the web'), but lacks sibling differentiation since there are no sibling tools.

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 implied usage guidelines by listing scenarios ('finding latest information, troubleshooting errors, researching topics, and discussing ideas'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or include exclusions. With no sibling tools, this is adequate but not explicit.

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