web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful information by stating that results are grounded in Google Search and include citations and sources, but it omits other behavioral details such as result count, freshness guarantees, latency, or any access limitations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and what output to expect, and the second supplies concrete use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, output shape, and typical use cases. It could be more explicit about limitations or how it differs from sibling tools, but the given context is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema already documents the single query parameter, so description-level explanation is less critical. The description reinforces that queries should be specific and detailed, which adds marginal guidance, but it does not provide additional syntax, formatting, or example-based semantics beyond the schema.

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 a web search using Google Search grounding and returns cited results with sources, so the core purpose is specific and understandable. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself, but the 'quick factual lookups' phrasing hints at a lighter-weight alternative to deep_research.

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 gives explicit use cases: quick factual lookups, current events, recent news, and verifying specific data points. It does not provide exclusions or directly mention deep_research or fact_check as alternatives, so it stops short of full when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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