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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, yet the description still adds real behavior: the snapshot is redacted (so contents may be incomplete) and page text is untrusted and must be treated as data rather than instructions. That prompt-injection warning is safety-relevant context no annotation conveys.

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to call it, and the trust boundary for the returned text. The core capability and payload are front-loaded with no filler.

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 output schema, the description compensates by stating the return shape (URL plus redacted snapshot). For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

There is a single parameter, task_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it originates from alterlab_task_start. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"See what the task's page shows now: its URL and a redacted snapshot" names a specific verb (observe/see) and resource (the task's current page) plus the exact payload. It is clearly distinguishable from alterlab_task_status and alterlab_task_act 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?

It gives explicit sequencing ("Call after alterlab_task_act to decide the next step") and routes progress/budget checks to alterlab_task_status. It does not mention alterlab_task_vision_capture, the closest sibling, so the agent gets no guidance on text-observation vs vision capture.

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