search_gemini

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a timeout parameter but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic parameter mention.

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 very concise with just two sentences. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently lists parameters. However, the second sentence could be more structured - it mixes parameter listing with default value information in a somewhat awkward format.

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?

For an AI search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what kind of results to expect, how responses are formatted, error conditions, or how this differs from other search tools on the server. The description should provide more context given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description briefly mentions the parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Google Gemini AI' which identifies the resource, but lacks a specific action verb. It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like search_chatgpt or search_claude beyond the resource name. The purpose is somewhat vague rather than clearly articulated.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_google_search or search_chatgpt. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this specific AI search tool.

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