web_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the expected output: organic results with title, link, snippet, and optional answer box, knowledge graph, and related searches. This provides meaningful insight into tool behavior beyond the tool's name.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and the return format. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context about what results will be returned. It does not explain every parameter, but the schema covers those details, making the description reasonably complete for selection and invocation.

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 parameter details are fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning about parameter usage, such as query formatting or how 'location' differs from 'gl', but this is acceptable given the schema already covers it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search the web via Google (SearchApi)'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on general web search rather than specialized sources like YouTube, news, or scholar.

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 usage for general web queries and contrasts implicitly with specialized sibling tools, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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