search

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'return formatted results' and includes a 'ctx' parameter for logging, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, error behavior, or whether it's a read-only operation. The mention of 'ctx' is not in the schema, adding slight confusion.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It includes an Args list that mirrors the schema, which is somewhat redundant, but overall it remains brief and easy to scan. The extra 'ctx' parameter is a minor blemish.

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 annotations, the description leaves several gaps: no usage context, no alternatives, no behavioral caveats, and no insight into the output format beyond 'formatted results'. Although an output schema exists (so return values don't need explaining), overall completeness is lacking given the sibling tool and absent 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides minimal explanations ('query' is 'The search query string', 'max_results' is 'Maximum number of results to return'), but these add little beyond the schema's existing titles and default value. The description also lists a 'ctx' parameter that is absent from the schema, causing inconsistency.

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: 'Search Brave and return formatted results.' This uses a specific verb ('search'), resource ('Brave'), and output ('formatted results'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fetch_content' by focusing on searching rather than fetching.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_content. It merely describes what the tool does without explaining when to choose it over the sibling. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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