google_web_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 mentions the tool uses the Gemini API and returns results, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, result format, or potential limitations. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and utility. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating API details from usage). Overall, it earns its place efficiently.

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 complexity of a web search tool, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or operational constraints (e.g., API limits, latency), which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly in varied contexts.

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 the 'query' parameter well-documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the query's purpose ('find information on the internet'), but does not provide additional semantics like query formatting tips or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: 'Performs a web search using Google Search' and 'returns the results.' It specifies the action (search) and resource (web via Google), but lacks differentiation from siblings since there are none, which is acceptable but prevents a perfect score.

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 by stating it's 'useful for finding information on the internet based on a query,' which suggests when to use it. However, it does not explicitly outline when not to use it or mention alternatives, and there are no siblings to compare against, so guidance is basic.

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