browser_network_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the page-load scoping and the numbered-list format, which are useful but modest additions. It does not disclose behaviors like empty results or filename handling, but those are not critical given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the sibling pointer is delivered in a single clear sentence. Structure is exemplary.

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?

For a list-returning tool with full schema parameter coverage and annotations that cover safety, the description provides everything an agent needs: purpose, scope, and a clear pointer to the sibling for detailed data. No critical information 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description itself adds no extra parameter context, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full weight.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('network requests'), and scope ('since loading the page'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling browser_network_request by directing usage to it for full details. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from similar tools.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (browser_network_request) and the condition for using it (when full details are needed). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and effectively routes the agent to the correct tool for a specific follow-up need.

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