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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds genuinely new context: the browser retains cookies, goes to sleep rather than being destroyed, and billing halts. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs in order to reassure a user about calling close.

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?

One sentence with the resource and action front-loaded and consequences trailing. Every clause carries information the agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 compensates by stating the return value (session minutes and credits). For a zero-parameter, billed-session teardown, nothing material is left unexplained.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to compensate for; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. Nothing in the description conflates or misdescribes inputs.

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 (ends the session) on a specific resource (PeoplePerHour Cloud Browser), and the semantics of 'close' are spelled out rather than left ambiguous. This cleanly distinguishes it from cotlet_browser_open and the other browser_* action tools.

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 mention that 'the per-minute charge stops' makes the trigger condition (user is done browsing and wants to stop billing) clear without naming siblings explicitly. It stops short of stating when to keep the session open instead, so it is strong but not fully explicit routing guidance.

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