Search the web with Antigravity

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes further: it names the exact permission dependency, the failure mode and its error text, and notes that partial output is returned on timeout. That is concrete operational context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavioral caveats, with no filler. "Read-only" is a minor duplication of the readOnlyHint annotation, the only slightly redundant fragment.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the permission prerequisite, and failure behavior. The remaining gap is routing guidance versus sibling tools, which is a usage rather than completeness concern.

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 all three parameters (model, query, timeoutSec) are already self-documented, including the model-list cross-reference. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a concrete verb+resource ("look something up on the web and answer with source URLs") and states the return shape, which is more than the tautological name would suggest. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like antigravity_shell or antigravity_brainstorm, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It supplies a real usage prerequisite (the read_url permission must be allowed in settings.json, otherwise a permission-denied error naming the rule appears), which is genuinely actionable. However it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as antigravity_shell for fetching pages, leaving the selection implied.

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