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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: credit cost per started minute, session lifetime (ends on close or 3 minutes after the last call), and the domain restriction. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot express; only session/concurrency details are missing.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, followed by the domain constraint and cost/session rules. No filler, though the credit-session sentence packs two distinct facts that could be separated for scannability.

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, and the description covers the return values (final URL and title), the domain restriction, and the cost/lifetime model. It is nearly complete; the missing piece is how this differs from cotlet_browser_open and whether a session must be opened first.

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% for the single url parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by narrowing valid targets to Contractor Foreman pages, which changes how an agent chooses the URL.

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 ('Opens') and resource (a public http/https address in the Contractor Foreman Cloud Browser) and describes the return value. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling cotlet_browser_open, which sounds like the same action, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the name/description alone.

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?

Adds a real usage constraint — only Contractor Foreman pages open — which tells the agent when this call will succeed. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over cotlet_browser_open, cotlet_browser_click, or cotlet_browser_read, so the selection guidance is only implied.

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