search_google_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions a timeout parameter, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (search results format, pagination, error conditions), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or other operational characteristics. 'Google web search' implies an external API call but lacks details.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides parameter overview. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.

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 a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what format the search results come in, whether there's pagination, error handling, or any details about the search behavior. The agent would be left guessing about the return format and operational characteristics.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by restating parameter names and types that are already in the schema, with only the 'default 90' for timeout providing slight additional context beyond the schema's 'default: 90'.

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 'Google web search' which specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('Google web'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its many sibling search tools (like search_bing_search, search_duckduckgo, etc.), which would require a 5.

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. With 12 sibling tools including many other search engines (Bing, DuckDuckGo, ChatGPT, etc.), there's no indication of when Google search is preferred or what distinguishes it from other search options.

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