browser_get_page_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a clear list of retrieved fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it waits for page load or returns null for missing fields. Since annotations cover the key safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action (Retrieves) and then lists specific items. No fluff, no repetition of the tool name or annotations. Every word earns its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must convey what is returned. It successfully lists the key fields (URL, title, frames, tabs count, viewport, agent info). The phrase 'including' suggests the list is not exhaustive, and it does not explain the shape of frames data or other nuances, but for a simple read-only tool this is reasonably 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (coverage 100%). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info because there are none to explain, but it does clarify the output contents, which is helpful for interpretation.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Retrieves' and names the resource 'detailed page metadata', then enumerates the exact data types (URL, title, frames, tabs count, viewport, agent information). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_get_html (which returns HTML) and browser_snapshot (which returns accessibility snapshot).

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 implies the use case: when the agent needs page-level metadata, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. With many sibling tools covering similar data (e.g., browser_get_links, browser_get_attributes), more explicit guidance would be better.

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