Web Search

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

Annotations already declare this as safe (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds useful context: it uses the Brave Search API, requires user's API key, and avoids IP blocks. It also describes the return format. It does not disclose rate limits or error handling, but the disclosure is adequate given the annotation coverage and search tool nature.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief note on the replacement behavior, a bulleted arg list, a returns section, and examples. Every section earns its place, and the content is front-loaded with the core function. No redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return values (title, URL, description, extras) and parameter meanings. It does not detail error scenarios or rate limits, but for a straightforward search tool with rich annotations and schema, this is almost complete.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds value by providing usage guidance, such as keeping queries to 1-6 words, explaining freshness format, and including concrete examples. This enriches the schema's raw parameter definitions.

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 function: 'Search the web using the Brave Search API' and lists the return payload (titles, URLs, descriptions, snippets). It distinguishes itself from the siblings by being a search tool rather than a fetch tool, and also explicitly differentiates from the native web_search by highlighting anti-detection capabilities.

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 explains why this tool should be used over the native web_search (anti-detection, own API key, avoiding IP blocks). It does not explicitly mention web_fetch or web_bulk_fetch as alternatives, but the search-vs-fetch distinction is implicit from the tool name and description. While clear context is provided, explicit when-not-to-use guidance for sibling tools is missing.

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