Brand mentions on the web (Brave Search)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing an external API key requirement and describing the output behavior (link detection and AI context). No contradictions found.

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 three sentences with no filler. It leads with the core action, then explains the purpose and adds the key prerequisite, all in a tight structure. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, an external API dependency, and no output schema. The description gives a high-level output hint (list of mentions with link status and AI context) but omits details on response structure, pagination, error handling, rate limits, or behavior when the API key is invalid. For a tool with these complexities, more specifics would be needed for fully autonomous invocation.

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 only 17% (domain only). The description clarifies the roles of 'brand' and 'domain' implicitly ('brand name', 'your own domain') but provides no information about count, country, language, or checkLinks. With such low coverage, the description must compensate but does not, leaving several parameters ambiguous.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Search the web for pages mentioning a brand name' and explicitly scopes to 'not on your own domain' while adding the link-checking purpose. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like keyword_suggest or ai_citation_check by focusing on unlinked mentions and outreach targets.

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?

The description implies a use case ('outreach targets for links') and states a prerequisite (BRAVE_API_KEY), but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but not directive, so agents must infer applicability from the surrounding toolset.

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