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 that the tool uses Serper, retrieves pages, and returns a markdown answer from Gemini, which is useful. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, costs, or whether the operation is read-only. For a search tool this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, both contributing value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the output format and the agent's role, which prevents misinterpretation. It is concise and front-loaded, though the second sentence could be slightly tighter.

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 the search process, the output format, and the agent's involvement. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return-value details are presumably documented there. The main missing piece is guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but no alternatives exist. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains the query as a natural-language search query. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Search the web via Serper') and resource ('Google Search API'), and it describes the output (a markdown-formatted answer). It is unambiguous and would distinguish itself from any sibling even if one existed.

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 implies the tool is for web searches and summarization, and it describes the internal process (agent decides, retrieves pages, returns answer). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but since there are no sibling tools, that is not a significant gap. The context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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