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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds material context beyond them: a 20,000-character cap, an explicit statement that field values, cookies and storage are never returned, scroll-position-dependent truncation, and a credit-cost/session-timeout model. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs to plan calls.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the most load-bearing fact (what is returned and what is withheld) comes first. The sentence 'both start near where it is scrolled to' is slightly ambiguous about what 'both' refers to (text and element list), costing a point.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the full return-value story, and it does: contents, size cap, withheld data, truncation behavior, and session/cost lifecycle. Nothing essential to calling or interpreting this tool is missing.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The character-limit note is behavior, not a parameter, so it does not raise this further.

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 concrete verb and resource — 'Returns the current page of the user's PeoplePerHour Cloud Browser' — and enumerates exactly what comes back (readable text, numbered lists of links/buttons/fields). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like cotlet_browser_screenshot or cotlet_browser_click.

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?

Implied guidance is strong: it is the tool for extracting readable page content and interactive element listings, which contrasts naturally with the screenshot/click/type siblings. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over cotlet_browser_screenshot or how it relates to cotlet_browser_scroll, so no true exclusions are stated.

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