research_brave

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

Discloses the authentication requirement (BRAVE_API_KEY) but does not cover other behaviors like error handling, rate limits, or result caching. With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and is only partially transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds unique value: the first states purpose and auth, the second gives usage context. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Despite low complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description omits what the tool returns and does not explain parameter details. It covers purpose and use case but leaves the agent to guess about output structure and error conditions.

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?

Only the 'query' parameter is described in the schema; 'limit' and 'since_days' have no descriptions. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema's coverage (33%), failing to compensate for the low coverage. It only loosely implies recency through 'fresh' content.

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?

Clearly states it performs general web search via Brave Search API. Distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it complements HN/Reddit/GitHub for non-tech topics, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use (fresh general-web content, non-tech topics) and contrasts with sibling tools. Also mentions the required environment variable, providing actionable context for invocation.

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