Google 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions an external endpoint ('documented /google-search endpoint') without explaining behavior like sync/async options, pagination, output format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the bare 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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It states the tool's purpose in nine words. Though very thin, it is appropriately sized for the minimal information it provides, with no filler. However, it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 the tool having 12 parameters, an output schema, and a rich feature set (execution_mode, enrichment, fields, pages_per_query), the description gives no context on how to approach these options. An agent would have to rely entirely on parameter descriptions but would lack guidance on overall workflow, when to use async, or what enrichments are relevant. The description is insufficient for the complexity of the tool.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, such as typical usage of 'fields' or how 'execution_mode' interacts with 'async'. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate—the description does not need to repeat schema info, but it also does not enrich it.

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 'Search Google with the documented /google-search endpoint' clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (Google). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling google_search_images, but the name itself implies a general web search. The mention of the endpoint is a minor addition, but the core purpose is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning contexts, prerequisites, or that other siblings (e.g., google_search_images, google_maps_search) might be more appropriate for other search types. There is no exclusion or alternative instruction.

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