Brave Images

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context in "Credit cost: 1 credit per call", which is not captured in annotations or schema. It stops short of describing result shape or rate/limit behavior, so it is useful but not rich.

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 short sentences with the cost constraint front-loaded at the end where it is most actionable. The leading fragment "Brave Images." merely repeats the tool name and title and is the only wasted token.

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 six parameters all fully described in the schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to add cost and capability context, which it does. The absence of an output schema means the return format ("structured image results") remains undefined, but the fields parameter and pagination note partially compensate.

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 every parameter including gl, hl, page, safe, query and fields is already documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description's mention of "pagination and SafeSearch" only restates capabilities the schema explains in more detail, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Search Brave Images via API") and names the resulting artifact ("structured image results"). It distinguishes itself by provider name, but never contrasts with the obvious alternatives in the sibling list such as google_images or bing_search, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With google_images, bing_search, duckduckgo_search and others available for image queries, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing Brave over an alternative beyond the provider name.

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