gemini_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search mechanism, output type (grounded answer plus citations), independence from other tools, and API key requirement. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the API key is invalid.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: function, differentiation/use case, and setup requirement. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Despite missing output schema details, the description covers purpose, usage context, and authentication. The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description provides enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 100% and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the single 'query' parameter.

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 'Performs a web search via Gemini + Google Search grounding', identifying the specific verb, resource, and mechanism. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Independent of Tavily/Firecrawl', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'use as a second search path for cross-validation', providing a clear when-to-use context. It also names the alternatives (Tavily/Firecrawl) and mentions the prerequisite GEMINI_API_KEY, giving explicit guidance.

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