Google Web Search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by noting real-time results, result types (knowledge graph, answer box), and the underlying service (Serper.dev), which are beyond the annotation fields. No contradictions detected.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Real-time Google web search results') and then enumerates key features. No unnecessary words; every phrase adds value.

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 complexity (pagination, multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential context: result types, targeting support, and real-time nature. It does not discuss pagination details, but the schema handles parameter documentation. Minor gaps like default values are covered by the schema.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description mentions 'country and language targeting' which adds some context to gl and hl parameters, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it provides real-time Google web search results and lists specific result types (organic listings, knowledge graph, answer box, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search.google.images, search.google.news, etc. by specifying 'web search'.

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 web search with country and language targeting, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search.semantic.web, search.ai.web) or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or alternative references.

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