Google Shopping search

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description layers on real behavioral context: the returned field set, ~50 products per search, currency scoping, 'a few seconds' latency, and explicit billing ($1/1,000 products). That cost/latency disclosure is exactly what annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then returns, then usage, then operational facts, with no wasted sentences. The return-field list is long but informative; overall tight and well ordered.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully (title, prices, store, delivery, rating, link), plus volume, latency, currency, and cost. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented with examples and constraints. The description's mention of country currency and per-search volume reinforces but does not extend the schema meaningfully, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search Google Shopping for a product in any country') and is clearly distinct from siblings like search_google_news, search_google_images, and search_google_videos. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the use cases ('price comparison, finding where to buy, and competitor or market price research'), giving clear context for selection. It does not name a specific alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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