Google Search MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond basic functionality: it mentions 'retry logic for reliability,' 'advanced content extraction (Readability algorithm),' and 'fetching the FULL content from top results.' However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling details, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. It starts with the core purpose, adds key capabilities (content extraction, search types), and ends with reliability features. No wasted words, and the structure flows logically from general to specific aspects.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job covering the essential behavior and scope. It explains the comprehensive search nature, content extraction, search types, and reliability. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure of consolidated content), which is a minor gap for a tool with rich functionality.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'include_domains' or 'exclude_domains' affect results). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have enhanced understanding of parameter interactions.

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 'comprehensive web search using Google Custom Search API' with specific capabilities like 'fetching the FULL content from top results using advanced content extraction (Readability algorithm)' and 'returning consolidated content.' It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning specific search types (web, news, images) and content extraction features that likely differentiate it from 'google_search' and 'deep_search_news'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by stating it 'supports web, news, and image search types' and performs 'comprehensive web search' with 'advanced content extraction.' However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide direct alternatives to sibling tools like 'deep_search_news' or 'google_search,' though the mention of search types implies some differentiation.

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