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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result coverage, freshness, or that queries hit the live open web. With annotations doing the minimal work, a one-line restatement contributes no extra behavioral context.

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?

Four words with zero padding, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Nothing is wasted, yet nothing is front-loaded beyond the tool name itself.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the structured fields carry most of the burden, so the minimal description is not crippling. However, for an open-world search tool with eight filtering parameters, the absence of any usage or scope guidance leaves a real gap.

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% across all 8 parameters (Count, Query, DateFrom/DateTo, TimeRange, Country, Language, Offset), so the schema already documents everything. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g., the custom date pairing), which is the baseline 3 when the schema does all the work.

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 restates the tool name almost verbatim ('Brave video search' for brave_videos), so it conveys the domain but adds no distinguishing detail. It does imply a verb+resource (search videos via Brave), which separates it from brave_images/brave_news, but it gives no basis for choosing it over bing_videos, google_videos, or duckduckgo_video.

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 tool versus the many sibling video/search tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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