chaprola_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit (10/day per user) and what the tool returns, adding context beyond the input schema. It does not explicitly state lack of side effects, but as a search tool this is implied. It could be improved by noting it doesn't modify any data or require authentication, but the provided information is useful.

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, each with a distinct purpose: what it does, what it returns, and a rate limit. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 straightforward web search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, return content, optional summary, and a rate limit. The input schema already provides parameter details, so the description effectively completes the picture. No critical information is missing.

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% for all three parameters (query, count, summarize), so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions the optional AI-grounded summary, which is already described in the schema. It doesn't add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting or constraints.

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 clearly states 'Search the web via Brave Search API' with a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates from other tools by describing the return format (titles, URLs, snippets). Among the sibling tools, no other tool is a web search, so there's no ambiguity.

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 provides clear context: it returns titles, URLs, snippets, and optional AI summary, with a rate limit. Although no alternative tools are explicitly mentioned, the behavior is specific enough that an agent can infer when to use it. There are no exclusions or counter-indications, but it doesn't explicitly compare to other search-like tools like chaprola_query.

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