browse_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior: fetching and parsing web pages, using Readability to strip ads, navigation, and boilerplate. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format (e.g., text structure). This is a moderate gap for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Fetch and parse a web page into clean text') and adds clarifying details ('using Readability. Strips ads, nav, and boilerplate.'). Every part earns its place by specifying the method and outcome without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (web parsing with cleanup), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation but omits critical details like output format, error cases, or performance considerations. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter (url) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't explicitly mention parameters, but it implies the 'url' parameter by stating 'Fetch and parse a web page.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0 parameters documented in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description compensates slightly by clarifying the resource type.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Fetch and parse a web page into clean text using Readability.' It specifies the verb (fetch and parse) and resource (web page), and mentions the technology (Readability) and outcome (clean text). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browse_answer or browse_extract, which likely have related but distinct purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (browse_answer, browse_compare, browse_extract, browse_search). It mentions stripping ads, nav, and boilerplate, which implies a use case for clean text extraction, but doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions. Without explicit comparisons, the agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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