website_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: actions and screenshots are observed, only supplied DOM checks verify goals, cart changes require cart/checkout goals, signup requires explicit test data and opt-in, and no payments/orders occur. It omits permissions, result retrieval, and side-effect details beyond those constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action first and constraints following. It is dense but earns most of its sentences; a slightly clearer structure around background polling and results retrieval would help.

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?

This is a complex nested-schema tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers key safety constraints and background polling, but it does not explain the nested spec parameters, the meaning of simulation_id, or how to retrieve results beyond polling job_status.

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 effectively 0% for most parameters, and the description explains only a few concepts: checks, cart/checkout goals, test data/opt-in, and job polling. It leaves major parameters such as simulation_id, spec.url, goal, task, device, max_steps, observation_mode, and resource limits unexplained.

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 verb and resource: 'Run prepared synthetic visitors on a real website URL.' It clearly conveys a browser-based synthetic-user test, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like email_test, market_test, or run_test.

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 gives useful operational context: this is a background job and you should poll job_status. It also specifies gating conditions for cart changes and signup submission. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over email_test, market_test, or run_test.

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