answer_query_websearch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the model name, the search enhancement, and the required input, which is meaningful. However, it omits behavioral traits such as external API dependence, potential latency of model+search calls, cost implications, or failure behavior if the search or model call errors out. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence ('Requires a query string') is slightly redundant with the schema but costs little. Overall efficient with minimal waste.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is reasonably complete about what it does and its input. However, since there is no output schema, it could have described the expected output shape or the nature of the answer, and it gives no failure or freshness guidance for a tool that makes live web searches.

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 the schema already documents the single 'query' parameter fully ('The natural language question to answer using web search'). The description's mention of requiring a 'query' string adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Answers') and resource (a natural language query via the Vertex AI gemini-2.5-pro model enhanced with Google Search). The web-search enhancement naturally distinguishes it from the doc-centric siblings (explain_topic_with_docs, get_doc_snippets, code_analysis_with_docs), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 given on when to prefer this tool over its siblings or vice versa. Given the sibling set is heavily documentation/analysis-oriented, the description could have noted when web search is appropriate (e.g., current events, facts not in local docs) versus when doc-based tools are better. Nothing is stated.

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