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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substance beyond that: it discloses the returned state fields, including 'who controls it (agent or user)' and 'previewAvailable, parkedExpiresAt', which conveys the lifecycle behavior of the browser session.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and its state fields, then cites the REST endpoint. Every clause carries information; minor cost is that the enumerated field parentheticals make it slightly crowded.

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 correctly takes on the burden of describing returns (status, page, controller, preview/park expiry, ended), which is sufficient for a read tool. It stops short of defining possible status values or pagination, but nothing critical for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by explaining that taskId is the id of a browser event drawn from muse_chat / muse_get_chat. chatId remains unexplained beyond the schema's terse 'The chatId.'

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 read operation ('the state of a browser the agent opened'), and enumerates the return surface: status, page, controller, watchability, ended. It partly distinguishes itself by tying taskId to browser events from muse_chat / muse_get_chat, but it does not contrast against browser siblings like muse_stop_browser or muse_open_browser_viewer.

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 tells the agent where taskId comes from (a browser event of muse_chat / muse_get_chat), which is genuinely useful usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-when-not relative to the other browser tools and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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