Brave Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine operational context by disclosing the credit cost (1 credit per call) and the availability of pagination, but says nothing about result volume, rate limits, or failure modes.

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, front-loaded with purpose before the cost note, with nothing extraneous. Minor redundancy in restating the product name as both the first phrase and the search target.

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 simple five-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, a complete annotation set, and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, its cost, and its pagination capability. What remains missing is sibling differentiation guidance, which is not essential for calling it correctly.

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 (query, gl, hl, page, fields) is already documented with defaults and examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("search Brave Search") and states the return shape ("structured organic results with pagination"), which is clear. It does not differentiate itself from sibling search engines like google_search, bing_search, or duckduckgo_search, nor from brave_images/brave_videos beyond the implicit adjective "organic".

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 pick Brave over the many sibling search providers, and no exclusions or preconditions (e.g., rate limits, credit budget considerations) are stated. The only implied usage signal is "organic results," which faintly suggests web results rather than images/videos.

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