browser_extract_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it discloses that the tool navigates the browser but returns no content ('It reads nothing itself'), that four providers land on an intermediate settings/app-list page rather than the token page, and that unsupported providers yield 'Unknown provider'. It does not say whether it navigates the current tab or opens a new one, nor anything about failure/timeout behavior, which is a meaningful gap for a state-mutating browser tool.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and provider list, then the read-it-yourself caveat, then the edge cases. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior, and it does cover navigation semantics, follow-up actions, and edge cases. The one remaining ambiguity is what the tool itself returns (instructions text, a status, or nothing before the follow-up read), which the description implies but never states outright.

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% and the schema already lists the accepted provider strings, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely new semantics beyond the schema: the behavior for out-of-list values ('Unknown provider') and the note that several listed providers route to an intermediate page, which affects how the result should be interpreted.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open a known provider's API page ... and get instructions for finding or creating its API credentials there.' It enumerates the supported providers and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_navigate and browser_get_page_content, so an agent can select it without reading the 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 states when to use it (only for the nine named providers), when not to (any other provider), and names the alternative explicitly: 'Any other provider answers Unknown provider; use browser_navigate and read the page yourself.' It also prescribes the required follow-up step. This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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