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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: this is the v3 sandbox-based agent, sessions are long-running, and keep-alive/workspaces are supported. The polling model (async task execution, not a synchronous result) is implied via 'call get_session to poll for status and output.' It stops short of cost, concurrency limits, or failure behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then workflow sequencing, then the auth prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow an agent needs: what it does, that results come back via get_session polling, and how to handle authenticated tasks. Return-shape detail is appropriately deferred to get_session, though session limits and expected duration are unaddressed.

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 all 7 parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces profile_id's purpose and cross-references list_browser_profiles, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already gives.

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 ('Create a new browser agent session and run a task') and immediately names where it sits in the workflow relative to get_session and list_browser_profiles. An agent can distinguish it from send_task or stop_session without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: poll with get_session after creation, and use list_browser_profiles first when authentication is required. Both the when-to-use and the prerequisites are stated rather than inferred.

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