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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of result format, result count, pagination semantics of the Offset parameter, or that results come from the live web. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added context keeps this near the floor.

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?

It is only two words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose to anchor the schema parameters that follow.

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 seven-parameter tool with an output schema and four close siblings, a two-word description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot tell which content type it returns or how it differs from brave_news or brave_images, even though the annotations and schema cover safety and parameter mechanics.

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 of the seven parameters documented in-schema (Query example, DateFrom/DateTo pairing rules, Country and Language allowed values, TimeRange presets, Offset default). Per the baseline rule, a fully documented schema yields a 3 when the description adds nothing further.

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?

"Brave search." merely restates the tool name with no verb, resource, or scope. It does not distinguish this tool from its siblings brave_news, brave_images, brave_videos, or brave_suggest, all of which are also Brave-backed searches.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus brave_news, brave_images, brave_videos, or the many other search tools in the catalog. An agent gets no signal about what content type this returns.

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