Simple factual web search via Brave (lookups, definitions, short queries). Fixed $0.003/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 provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds the provider (Brave) and the fixed cost of $0.003/call, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose the result format, pagination, or error behavior beyond what 'web search' implies.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose, use cases, and pricing, making it easy to scan.
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 comprehensive schema (all 6 params with descriptions) and the simple nature of the tool, the description covers essential context: purpose, use cases, provider, and cost. It doesn't explain return values explicitly, but the term 'web search' reasonably implies a list of results.
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% field description coverage, so each parameter is already documented clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so it does not elevate beyond the baseline established by the schema.
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 'Simple factual web search via Brave' – a clear verb (search), resource (web), and provider (Brave). It lists use cases (lookups, definitions, short queries) that differentiate it from deeper search siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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?
Provides clear use-case context: 'lookups, definitions, short queries' – indicating it is for simple, factual queries. This guides when to use, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like web_search_deep.
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.