answers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is blocking with ~10-30s latency, mentions the separate Brave Answers plan and ~$0.05 per call cost, and notes the output is AI-synthesized with citations. This goes beyond a generic description and gives meaningful operational context.

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: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add practical details (blocking, billing, latency), and finally provide alternative tool guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool and 100% schema coverage, the description is quite complete for decision-making. It covers the use case, cost, latency, output nature, and alternative tool. It omits details about error handling or output format, but those are not critical for selecting the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add detail about the parameters themselves, but this is acceptable because the schema already fully documents each parameter. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it provides an 'AI-synthesized, web-grounded answer with source citations' and distinguishes itself from the sibling research_submit by pointing to it for deep multi-iteration research. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for a direct cited answer without doing your own synthesis' and names the alternative research_submit for deep research. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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