Google Shopping Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that the tool returns specific product details, which is useful context, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key features. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward search tool with an output schema (though not detailed here), the description is complete. It communicates the tool's scope, the data it returns, and its primary use case (price comparison). The output schema covers return values, so no further detail is needed.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no further meaning to individual parameters. The description's mention of 'Compare prices across retailers' hints at the gl (country) parameter's purpose but does not go beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 'Google Shopping product listings' and enumerates the returned data fields (title, price, source, rating, delivery info, product images), making the tool's purpose and resource unmistakable. It distinctively positions itself as a shopping-specific search tool among siblings like search.google.images and search.google.web.

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 use for product price comparison ('Compare prices across retailers') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools on the same server. However, the name and purpose are self-explanatory for shopping-related queries.

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