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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals dependency on the Brave API and an API key, but says nothing about return format, pagination, rate limits, failure modes, or any side effects.

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 short sentence and front-loads the key identifier 'Web Search'. The 'Web Search:' prefix is mildly redundant with the following phrase, but overall there is no wasted content and the requirement is stated efficiently.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits what the search results look like, how to choose between the two parameters, any rate-limit or key-related caveats, and how this tool differs from the similarly named siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters, albeit with generic 'Q to process' and 'Query to process' text. The description adds no extra meaning about how q and query differ or which should be used, so the baseline score 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 the tool performs web search via the Brave Search API, so an agent can identify it as a web search tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from very similar siblings like x402-web-search-deep or x402-search, so it misses the differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 alternatives such as x402-web-search-deep or x402-search. The only operational detail is the BRAVE_SEARCH_KEY requirement, which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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