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

Annotations cover only safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds material context beyond them: cost model (one task credit per accepted task), replay semantics ('returns that task with replayed: true'), confirmation pausing in Chrome, and the domain/capability ceiling the task runs under.

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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing: scope/allowlist first, then the continuation model, then the cost/idempotency contract. No restatement of the tool name or 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, open-world, credit-consuming task launcher with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing model: what the task can touch, that it is inert until continued, and that a replayed call returns an existing task instead of consuming a new credit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: capabilities default to low-risk browsing, allowed_domains is a hard visit allowlist, and idempotency_key is retry-only rather than a general dedupe key. max_side_effects and confirmations are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Start a browser task') plus the unusual scope ('in the user's own Chrome profile') and the allowlist restriction. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming task_state, task_subgoal and task_respond as the continuation tools rather than alternates.

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 the tool does not act by itself and routes the agent to the three continuation tools. It also gives when-to-use guidance for capabilities ('default to ordinary low-risk browsing', add fill/click when needed) and for idempotency_key ('reuse only to retry the exact same request after a lost response').

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