Busca com grounding (Gemini)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output format ('Saída enxuta: apenas texto + fontes') and that sources are cited, but says nothing about latency, cost/quota, whether grounding always triggers a web search, or freshness guarantees. Some transparency, clearly incomplete for a web-facing 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 tightly packed sentences: the first gives purpose and mechanism, the second front-loads the output contract. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and an explicit return-shape statement, the description is essentially complete. It lacks only operational context (quota, freshness, grounding behavior) that would matter for a tool with no annotations, preventing a 5.

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% — both 'query' and 'context' are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already says, so 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?

The description states a specific verb (search), resource (current web information), and mechanism (Google Gemini grounding via Google Search), plus the return shape (answer + cited sources). An agent knows exactly what the tool produces. No siblings exist to differentiate, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Busca informação atual na web' implies usage for fresh/current information, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. Adequate but leaves selection reasoning implicit.

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