browser_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the open-site behavior, sign-in check, 'Continue with Google' flow, pre-approved account selection without prompting, and the logged_in/needs_user return contract. It also covers the interactive stop-and-ask condition.

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 front-load the purpose, then concisely detail the flow, account-selection policy, and return semantics. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 login tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return value, the interactive stop condition, and the account-selection policy. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and know how to respond after the call.

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?

The only parameter, url, has 0% schema coverage. The description implies url is the job board site by saying 'Opens the site,' but it does not explicitly define the parameter or its formatting constraints. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not fully explicit.

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 goal: ensure signed-in status on a job board before applying. It describes the login flow and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_open or browser_click by being a higher-level authentication operation.

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 provides clear context ('before applying') and instructs to stop and ask the user on 2FA/captcha/consent. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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