navigate

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

Annotations only declare not-read-only, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds real operational context: private-address blocking gated by CLOAK_ALLOW_PRIVATE=1, the returned fields, a BLOCKED? bot-challenge hint, and that retries=N re-tries with a fresh identity.

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-loads the action and scheme restriction, then stacks behavior and parameters without filler. It is dense in a way that rewards careful reading but every clause carries information.

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?

For a 4-parameter, open-world navigation tool with an output schema, it covers invocation, defaults, blocking rules, retry semantics, and the sibling handoff. Return values are already in the output schema, and the description only adds the BLOCKED? hint on top.

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%, so the description must carry all four parameters, and it does: url format/blocking, retries as fresh-identity re-attempts, wait_until with its four enum values, and settle_ms as auto-selected from prior site experience unless set.

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 and resource ('Open a URL') plus scope constraints (http/https, private addresses blocked). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the read_url sibling, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly: 'To open AND read a page in one call, use read_url.' That is a clear selection rule, though it does not cover other navigation-adjacent siblings (tab_new, reload, go_back) or state when this tool alone is insufficient.

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