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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: a hard 20,000-character limit, the fact that both text and links start near the current scroll position on long pages, explicit non-return of field values/cookies/storage, credit cost per started minute, and session termination after close or 3 minutes idle. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs and are not covered by the readOnly/openWorld annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct useful information: return payload, exclusion boundary, long-page behavior, and cost/session lifetime. It is front-loaded with what the tool returns and wastes no words.

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?

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description is nearly complete: it explains return shape, limits, exclusions, scroll behavior, and session economics. It could be slightly more complete by naming alternatives for when reading is not appropriate, but for the tool itself nothing critical 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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output and behavioral constraints rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('current page of the user's Skool Cloud Browser') and enumerates exactly what is returned: readable text up to 20,000 characters plus a numbered list of links, buttons, and fields. An agent can distinguish this from browser_screenshot or browser_click without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose—read the current page—but the description never explicitly says when to use this instead of siblings like cotlet_browser_screenshot, navigate, or click. It also doesn't give prerequisites such as needing an open browser session, though the cost note hints at session behavior.

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