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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the CDP mechanism (Network.getCookies), the fallback to document.cookie with its limitation (non-httpOnly only), and the pageId auto-selection behavior. This gives the agent a solid behavioral model. It could add what the return format looks like, but given no output schema exists, this is a reasonable effort.

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, each adding distinct value: what it does + attributes returned, the use case, the fallback and parameter default. No fluff. Slight room for improvement — the CDP and fallback could be separated more clearly — but overall tight and well front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return content, which it does by listing the cookie attributes returned. It covers the fallback, auto-selection, and the socket default. For a read-only cookie-fetch tool with 3 mostly standard params, this is reasonably complete. Could mention pagination or large cookie set handling, but not essential.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (udid, pageId, socket). The description adds meaningful context on pageId ('omit to auto-select the visible/active page') which goes beyond the schema's 'auto-picked when omitted'. But udid and socket are standard and the description adds little beyond what the schema conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool gets cookies for a page via CDP Network.getCookies, listing specific cookie attributes (httpOnly/secure/sameSite/domain/path/expiry). It distinguishes from the general ios_safari_cookies sibling by being Android-specific and explicitly noting httpOnly inclusion. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or contrast with cookie-setting tools, and 'Get cookies' is somewhat generic.

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?

The description provides useful usage context — 'useful for debugging auth/session state' — and tells the agent that omitting pageId auto-selects the visible/active page. It also explains the fallback behavior to document.cookie. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs alternatives like ios_safari_cookies, device_get_browser_url, or webpage_clear_cookies/set_cookie.

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