internet_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns websites, snippets, and URLs, and mentions an optional news display. However, it does not disclose rate limits, the external Brave API dependency, or how the optional news results are controlled—which is not reflected in the schema.

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 two succinct sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and includes return types, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

As a simple 2-parameter search tool, the description gives the essential purpose and return types but has gaps: 'Optionally displays news results' is ambiguous and not backed by any parameter, and there is no mention of error conditions or result structure. The absence of an output schema makes these omissions more noticeable.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'query' and 'count' are fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Performs a web search using the Brave Search API' and lists the outputs ('relevant websites, snippets, and URLs'). This is a specific verb+resource pair that leaves 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 implies use when a web search is needed, but there are no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives because no sibling tools are listed. It lacks exclusions or context about when this tool is preferred over other methods.

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