google_search

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 a key behavioral trait: the tool returns snippets only, which is a limitation. It also implies a read-only search operation. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error behavior, leaving some gaps for a complete behavioral picture.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and every word contributes value. It is efficiently structured with clear guidance and alternatives.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: it is a search, returns snippets, and identifies alternatives for deep research. It is reasonably complete, though it could mention result count limits, but the schema already handles that.

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 only describes the 'query' parameter, while 'numResults' has no description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, such as how to use numResults or what values are appropriate. With only 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing semantics.

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 performs a 'Simple Google search for quick lookups' and explicitly notes it 'Returns snippets only,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_research and deep_search. The verb and resource are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('quick lookups') and when not to, directing users to 'google_research or deep_search instead' for deep research with full page content. This clearly differentiates it from alternatives.

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