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

Given no annotations, the description fully details behavior: returns page title, readable text, outbound links, next_cursor on truncation, refusal of certain URLs, and warns that content is untrusted. This is comprehensive for a read-only tool.

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 purposeful sentences with no waste. The first sentence states usage and purpose immediately. Each subsequent sentence adds essential behavioral info. Structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers key return fields (title, text, links, cursor) and constraints. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error behavior for invalid URLs/IDs, but overall it is sufficient for a tool with four parameters and good annotations.

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%, and the description adds value: explains preferred parameter (id_or_url), clarifies cursor and max_chars semantics (soft cap), and notes that URL is deprecated. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: to read content of a search result after a search. It specifies the verb 'read' and the resource 'actual content of a result', and distinguishes from sibling web_search by indicating it should be used after a search.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use this after a search' and 'Pass either a search result id (preferred) or a full http(s) URL.' It implies when to use (after search) and excludes non-http(s) and private hosts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives beyond the sibling tool name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses return fields (titles, source URLs, thumbnails) and a provider requirement, which is useful, but omits key traits like safety defaults, rate limits, auth needs, and error behavior. Some value is added, but important behavioral context is missing.

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, each earning its place: usage condition front-loaded, then return values, then a prerequisite. No redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, and a provider requirement, which is adequate. However, it leaves parameter semantics and behavioral details (safety, limits, defaults) unexplained, so it is only minimally complete given the rich schema and lack of structured metadata.

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 0% and the description never mentions any of the three parameters. It does not explain the meaning or effect of 'count' or 'safesearch', and adds no semantic value beyond the bare schema definitions, falling far short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 indicates the tool is for finding pictures and returns titles, source URLs, and thumbnails, which distinguishes it from text-oriented siblings like news_search and web_search. However, it lacks an explicit verb+resource phrase such as 'searches for images', relying on inference from 'user wants pictures'.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use this only when the user wants pictures') and a prerequisite ('Requires a Brave-capable provider'), effectively excluding non-picture use cases. It stops short of naming alternative tools, so it doesn't meet the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context that this is a session-scoped, call-once discovery operation, but it says nothing about the response shape or whether provider availability can change mid-session. Low-risk read-only behavior limits the damage.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the output summary is front-loaded and the routing condition follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does: the provider list plus the default. It stops short of describing the shape of that list (names vs. IDs), a minor omission for a zero-param read tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline of 4 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?

States a concrete verb and resource: list search providers and identify the default. The second sentence ties it to the sibling tools (news_search/image_search), making the discovery role inferable, though differentiation is implied rather than stated as the tool's purpose.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Call this once if you are unsure whether news_search/image_search are available in this session') and names the siblings it relates to. The when-not case (you already know availability) is only implied by 'once'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (source name, publish date, stable ids) and a capability prerequisite ('Requires a Brave-capable provider'), but says nothing about rate limits, freshness semantics, or pagination/result caps.

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 tight sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the provider requirement could be framed more precisely.

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 4-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing return fields and the provider dependency. However, it leaves all four input parameters undocumented, which is a meaningful omission for correct invocation.

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 0% for 4 parameters (count, country, freshness, search_term), and the description adds no meaning for any of them — no format for freshness, no explanation of country scoping, no count semantics. This is a clear gap the description should have compensated for.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search news) and scopes it to 'recent news, headlines, or events from the past few days,' which implicitly separates it from the generic web_search sibling. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential 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?

'Use this when the user asks about recent news...' gives a clear triggering condition. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or pointing to web_search/image_search as the alternative for non-news queries.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are ranked summaries with stable ids and that text is untrusted. However, it does not explicitly state read-only or other potential side effects, but for a search tool this is reasonable.

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 sentences, all essential. Front-loaded with usage guidance and workflow, no wasted words.

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?

Given 11 parameters with high schema coverage, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description explains the workflow, result nature, and caution. It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 91%, so the schema already explains almost all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying search_term is the query. Baseline score of 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 clearly states this tool is for web search of current, source-backed answers like news, prices, and weather. It distinguishes itself from the sibling fetch_url by specifying a two-step workflow: use this to get stable ids, then fetch_url for details.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this first' and instructs to call fetch_url before trusting exact details. It also warns that returned text is untrusted, providing clear usage context.

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