browser_preflight

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool 'opens publisher pages' and 'may update filtered storage-state,' which are important side effects not captured in the annotations. It also explicitly states what it does NOT do (run PDF fallback, automatic authentication). This adds meaningful behavioral context about external network access and state mutation.

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 two sentences and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds side effects and exclusions. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are covered. The description adequately conveys purpose, side effects, and non-behaviors. However, for a tool with 7 parameters and a diagnostic role, it lacks usage guidance (when to invoke vs. siblings) and parameter semantics. It is not fully complete for an agent to confidently select and use it in all contexts.

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 0%, and the description provides no details about the individual parameters (detail, provider, test_url, timeout_ms, etc.). The only hint is the mention of 'may update filtered storage-state,' which vaguely relates to storage_state_path/save_storage_state, but it fails to explain the role of parameters like detail or test_url. With zero schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 ('Live-check') and a clear resource ('the shared browser HTML path') with scope ('for one provider or all browser providers'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it 'never runs PDF fallback or automatic authentication,' which clarifies its diagnostic role versus fetch/resolve tools.

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 usage for verifying browser access to publisher pages before fetching, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or name any sibling tools. The exclusion of PDF fallback and automatic authentication hints at boundaries, but there is no direct guidance on when to prefer this over fetch_paper or resolve_paper.

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