rag_search_google

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'ddgs' (likely a DuckDuckGo search library) but does not explain that it uses DuckDuckGo instead of Google directly, nor does it discuss rate limits, authentication, or potential blocking. The 'RAG-like similarity sort' is vague.

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 concise sentences: the first declares the action and resource, the second adds the key differentiating feature. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.

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 tool's basic purpose and a key feature (similarity sort), but lacks details about the source (DuckDuckGo vs Google), failure modes, and how to choose between siblings. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return value descriptions.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by introducing 'RAG-like similarity sort', which implicitly relates to the 'top_k' parameter and distinguishes this tool from plain search. This provides context 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 'Search on Google' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'RAG-like similarity sort' which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'rag_search_ddgs' and 'deep_research_google'. However, the phrase 'using ddgs' could be more explicit about the underlying source.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., deep_research_google, rag_search_ddgs). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools for different scenarios.

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