browser_enrich_memory

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds the 'store in agent memory' behavior and the 100-credit cost, which is useful context. However, it doesn't go deeper into failure handling or idempotency implications, and it doesn't contradict the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a concise credit-cost note. It conveys purpose, context, and cost without unnecessary detail, earning a perfect score.

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?

The tool has a simple interface, comprehensive schema, and supporting annotations. The description covers the essential use case and cost, though it does not mention the async sibling or return behavior. For its complexity, it is adequately complete.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema carries the burden of documenting url, project_id, memory_type, and extract_goal. The description adds no extra parameter-level information, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Extract content from a web page and store it in agent memory (ZeroDB).' It uses a specific verb and names the resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_extract or browser_enrich_memory_async, so it doesn't achieve a 5.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Use when you want an agent to "remember" information from a URL for future recall.' This tells when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when extraction without persistence is needed (browser_extract).

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