Search

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: credit consumption, the mandatory confirm flag, the page>11 400 failure mode, and a clarification that a read-like POST does not publish anywhere. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and useful, though rate limiting and credential/account behavior are not explained.

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-loaded with the primary action and return shape, then constraints and cost in a compact block. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 helpfully names the return fields, and it covers cost, confirmation, and paging limits for a 6-parameter tool. Minor gaps remain around the account parameter's effect and date_posted usage, but the essentials are present.

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 in the schema, including page bounds and the region country code. The description restates region and paging but adds no syntax or default details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Performs a Google search') and describes the returned payload (url, title, description), which is enough to distinguish it from the platform-specific search siblings like youtube_search or reddit_search. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operating context: region for localization, page 1-11 only, and the prerequisite confirm=true because the call consumes paid credits. It still offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the many other search tools in the sibling set.

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