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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the 'Idempotently terminate' phrasing is largely redundant. The description does add two things annotations cannot carry: closing has no billing side effect ('never creates another payment') and the bearer must be supplied out-of-band on the transport. It omits what happens to in-flight work or whether sibling leases are affected.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two constraints that matter (billing, credential placement). Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description covers idempotency, billing, and auth placement; only post-close state (what happens to the relay's pending work, error behavior if already closed) is left implicit.

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?

One parameter with 0% description coverage; the schema's BrowserSessionID pattern documents the id format but the description adds no format or example detail. It does usefully disambiguate the lease bearer (transport) from the session_id argument, which prevents a common misuse.

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 ('terminate') plus the exact resources affected ('the CDP relay and upstream browser for one lease'), which is more precise than the bare title. It is clearly separable from siblings like ausca_browser_session_connect and ausca_browser_session_status.

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 clear operational context for invoking it correctly: the lease bearer goes on the transport, never in tool arguments. It does not name an alternative (e.g., status-checking before closing) or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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