Default web search via Brave for ambiguous or general queries. Fixed $0.008/call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query string | |
| country | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code | |
| language | No | Language code (e.g. 'en', 'pt-PT') | |
| freshness | No | Recency filter for results | |
| max_results | No | Number of results (1-20, default 10) | |
| search_type | No | Type of search to perform |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the back-end engine (Brave) and the fixed cost ($0.008/call), but does not detail expected response format, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The basic nature of a search tool is implied, but more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('Default web search via Brave') and appends the cost detail. There is no wasted wording, making it highly efficient.
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 schema fully documents parameters and the output is obviously a list of search results, the description provides adequate tool-level context (engine, cost, scope). It omits any mention of return structure, which would be nice but is not essential for a straightforward search tool.
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%, with each parameter (query, country, language, freshness, max_results, search_type) already documented clearly. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 is a 'Default web search via Brave' and specifies it is for 'ambiguous or general queries.' This identifies a specific verb (search), resource (web via Brave), and scope, distinguishing it from the sibling tools (e.g., web_search_deep, web_search_simple).
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 provides clear context by framing this as the default search tool for ambiguous or general queries. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for other cases, but the 'default' qualifier strongly implies its place among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each search tool has a distinct purpose: cached, deep, medium, and simple searches are clearly differentiated by query type and cost. The health tool is also clearly separate.
The four search tools follow a consistent web_search_<modifier> pattern, making their hierarchy obvious. The health tool breaks the pattern but is a standard auxiliary endpoint.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of routing search queries. Each tier earns its place without unnecessary duplication.
The search tiers cover a spectrum from cache-only to deep research, and the health check provides operational coverage. No obvious gaps in the search domain.