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

The annotations declare idempotentHint=true, but the description says scrolling moves down or up by `screens` viewport heights from the current page. Repeated identical down/up calls would move further, which contradicts the idempotent hint. Despite otherwise useful details about loaded content, return values, and session credit costs, the rule requires a score of 1 for this contradiction.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and modes, then adds only relevant follow-on details: loaded content, return values, and session cost/lifecycle. Every sentence earns its place, including the billing note because it affects how an agent should manage the browser session.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape (URL, title, at_top, at_bottom) and session lifecycle details. Combined with annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, this gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 `element`, `screens`, and `direction`, including the default and enum values. The description restates how these parameters combine, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('scrolls') and resource ('the current page') in the Pirate Ship Cloud Browser, and enumerates the scrolling modes: down/up by screens, top/bottom, or until an element is in view. It also distinguishes itself from cotlet_browser_read by noting that content loading on scroll appears and the next read lists it.

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?

Explains clear usage contexts: loading content that appears on scroll and bringing a specific element into view, and it implies sequencing with cotlet_browser_read ('the next read lists it'). It does not explicitly name when to choose read, screenshot, or other browser siblings instead, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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