gemini_rag_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it returns an AI-generated answer with source citations grounded in File Search stores, which is not inferable from annotations. It omits any mention of latency, cost differences across models, or failure modes for nonexistent stores.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the retrieval mechanism and return format each getting exactly one clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the return shape (generated answer plus citations), and the schema fully documents inputs. What is missing is any prerequisite linking to sibling tools for discovering valid store names and a note on behavior when a store is empty or invalid.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (model, query, store_names, metadata_filter) are already documented with examples and valid values. The description only alludes to store_names via 'grounded in your File Search stores' and adds no syntax or formatting detail 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?

States a specific verb (query) and resource (your documents) plus the grounding mechanism (File Search stores). The sibling list is entirely store/document CRUD management, so this tool's retrieval role is unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for answering questions over indexed documents, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. It also doesn't tell the agent to call gemini_list_stores first to obtain valid store resource names, which is a required input.

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