google_search

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by noting the search runs 'through the user's real Chrome session,' which implies results may be personalized or dependent on browser state. It also scopes to 'public web,' clarifying that private resources are out of scope.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Search the public web with Google through the user's real Chrome session.' Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise.

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 tool with only two parameters, a clear output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential operation. It lacks explicit parameter documentation, but the parameter names are apparent, and the output schema likely handles return specifics. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the `keyword` or `limit` parameters. While names are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify that `limit` likely caps the number of results, nor does it explain any relationship between the parameters. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the public web with Google.' It also adds a distinguishing detail ('through the user's real Chrome session') that sets it apart from sibling search tools. 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 description implies usage for general Google web searches via 'public web,' but it does not explicitly compare with sibling search engines like bing_search or sogou_search. It lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though the 'public web' qualifier provides some context against site-specific tools.

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