search_custom_siterestrict

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns formatted search results and describes parameters, but it doesn't disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements (beyond passing an email), or error behaviors. This is adequate for a simple read-only search but doesn't add deeper behavioral context like rate limits or the nature of the formatted output.

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 clean docstring with a one-sentence summary, a structured Args list, and a Returns section. Every line is informative and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters with 3 required and an output schema. The description explains all parameters, defaults, and the return format. It doesn't mention edge cases or error handling, but for a straightforward search tool, the description provides sufficient context. A small gap is the lack of any mention of authorization prerequisites or limitations, so it's not a 5.

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 has no descriptions for any properties (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It clearly explains each parameter's meaning, type, defaults, and constraints (e.g., 'num (int): Number of results to return (1-10)', 'start (int): The index of the first result to return (1-based)'). This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the description should provide.

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 'Performs a search restricted to specific sites using Google Custom Search', which specifies the verb (performs a search), the resource (specific sites via Google Custom Search), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like the general 'search_custom' by the site restriction. It is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a search needs to be restricted to particular sites or domains. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. The 'sites' parameter makes it obvious, but there's no explicit 'use this instead of search_custom' guidance, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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