APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the data source (Serper.dev) and enumerates return fields (title, price, source, etc.), adding useful behavioral context. However, it omits operational details like rate limits, caching behavior, or explicit read-only status that would fully compensate for missing 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource type and uses a dash-separated list to convey return fields without waste. Every element earns its place.

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 low complexity (3 simple parameters, no output schema), the description adequately compensates by listing expected return fields. It meets the completeness threshold for this tier of tool, though mentioning read-only nature would improve it further.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (q, gl, num). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as providing 'Google Shopping product listings' and specifies unique return fields (price, rating, delivery info, images) that distinguish it from general web search. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'Search' or 'Retrieve' at the start, slightly weakening immediate clarity.

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 implies usage context through specific product-focused return fields (price comparison, retailers), suggesting when to use this over siblings like search.google.web. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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