Brave Videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful detail not in the annotations: a fixed credit cost of 1 per call, which affects whether an agent should call it repeatedly. It stops short of describing result fields or pagination limits, but for a read-only search tool that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences are front-loaded with the core action, and the credit cost is stated up front where an agent will see it. The leading 'Brave Videos.' sentence merely restates the title and could be dropped without loss.

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 documented in the schema and safety covered by annotations, the description supplies what is missing: the external Brave backend, credit cost, and support for pagination and SafeSearch. Return values are only summarized as 'structured video results', but with no output schema that is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 all six parameters, including gl, hl, page, safe, and fields, are already documented in the schema with examples. The description only echoes pagination and SafeSearch at a high level without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search Brave Videos') plus the result shape ('structured video results with pagination and SafeSearch'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate from siblings such as google_videos or brave_search, so an agent must infer which search backend to prefer.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The only guidance is implicit in the name and the mention of pagination/SafeSearch. Nothing tells the agent why it would pick brave_videos over google_videos or brave_search.

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