Brand mentions on the web (Brave Search)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires an external BRAVE_API_KEY, explains the pay-as-you-go cost model, and clarifies that results exclude your own domain and include link detection plus excerpts.

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 pack the core purpose, key parameter guidance, and the critical API-key requirement without redundancy. The most important behavioral facts are front-loaded, and 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: required brand/domain, pagination, freshness, and external API key. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the purpose and key behaviors are sufficiently clear for an agent to call it correctly.

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 56%, with brand, country, language, and checkLinks lacking descriptions. The description helps by clarifying brand ('brand name'), domain exclusion, freshness monitoring, and pagination, but it does not compensate for the undocumented country/language parameters or fully detail checkLinks semantics.

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 and resource: 'Search the web for pages mentioning a brand name that are not on your own domain, and check whether each mentioning page links to you.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like ai_citation_check or ai_search_sources by focusing on brand mentions and outbound link detection.

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 concrete use cases: 'Unlinked mentions are outreach targets' and 'excerpts show in what context AI engines see the brand.' It also gives operational guidance for freshness and offset pagination, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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