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 the API dependency but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs beyond the config resource, error handling, or the format/scope of search results. For a web search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds necessary context about the config requirement. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating prerequisites from usage notes).

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 tool's complexity (web search with API integration), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key contextual details: what the search results look like (format, fields), limitations (e.g., commercial vs. academic use), error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. The config requirement is noted, but overall coverage is insufficient for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'query' operators work in practice or typical use cases for 'start'). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over 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: 'Search the web using Google Custom Search API.' It specifies the verb ('Search') and resource ('the web'), and mentions the specific API used. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'fetch_webpage' or 'smart_command' that might also retrieve web content.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions a prerequisite ('Requires google_search_config resource.') but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_webpage' or 'smart_command'. There's no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or when it should be avoided.

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