Browser evidence fixture

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the 'Read-only, zero-auth, no external side effects' sentence is largely redundant. However, the description does add genuinely new behavioral context not in structured fields: the result is a *synthetic* fixture, it is marked unredacted, and URL/title context is retained.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the rarer behavioral details (unredacted, URL/title retained) are placed after the usage trigger. The opening 'Use when a host needs...' clause is slightly circular, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: a JSON browser-evidence packet, unredacted, with URL and title context. That is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though nothing explains how the packet is structured or what 'contract inspection' yields.

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 takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies.

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 resource (a synthetic browser-evidence fixture) and its purpose (contract inspection), plus what it returns (a JSON browser-evidence packet). It is clear on its own, but it never differentiates itself from the large crowd of sibling proof/context/telemetry fixtures, so an agent can only pick it by name matching.

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?

'Use when a host needs the synthetic browser evidence fixture for contract inspection' gives a usage trigger, but it is circular and adds no when-not guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives among siblings like telos.proof or telos.context.pack. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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