search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions using the Google Custom Search API, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what format the results will be returned in. The description is minimal and doesn't provide sufficient context about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. For a search tool with 3 parameters, the description should provide more context about what kind of results to expect, any limitations of the Google Custom Search API, or typical use cases. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the web using Google Custom Search API'. It specifies the action (search) and resource (web via Google Custom Search API), making the function unambiguous. However, since there are no sibling tools mentioned, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, which prevents a perfect score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or in what contexts it's appropriate. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this search tool should be selected over other potential search methods. This absence of usage context leaves the agent without operational guidance.

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