observe_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the cost ('1 API request'), the token-budgeting behavior, and that the page is loaded/emulated. It implies a read-only, side-effect-free perception step but does not state auth requirements or rate limits explicitly.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return shape, then routing and cost. Four dense sentences, all earning their place, with only mild redundancy between 'token-budgeted' and 'token-efficient'.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned structure and the opt-in extras. It names run_sequence as the follow-up tool, though it could say more about how the classification/suggested-actions groups map to next actions.

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 the baseline is 3. The description groups the optional output toggles ('readable content (Markdown), the ARIA tree, and a screenshot') but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (observe/get) and resource (web page) and explicitly enumerates the return payload (id-indexed elements, page-type classification, suggested actions). It also positions itself against the obvious siblings (take_screenshot, inspect_page) by contrasting with 'a raw screenshot or full DOM', so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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?

Says to use the returned selectors with run_sequence to act, and frames itself as the fastest way to understand an un-instrumented page. It implies when it beats a screenshot/DOM but never gives an explicit use-this-not-that rule against inspect_page or take_screenshot.

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