search_google_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a timeout parameter but doesn't describe other key traits like rate limits, authentication needs, result format, pagination, or error handling. For a web search tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first three words. The parameter information is brief and directly relevant, with no wasted words, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the complexity of a web search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, performance expectations, and how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value by restating the parameters and their types, but doesn't provide additional context like query formatting tips or timeout implications beyond what's in 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 the tool's purpose as 'Google web search' with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Google web'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_bing_search' or 'search_duckduckgo' beyond the Google branding, missing explicit distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the many other search siblings (e.g., Bing, DuckDuckGo, ChatGPT). The description lacks context on use cases, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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