Open page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the name — a real browser is launched and the page self-updates by polling the latest show result — but it omits whether the call blocks, what it returns (URL? handle?), and what happens if no browser is available.

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 short sentences, action stated first, with the polling detail front-loaded as the one behavior an agent needs to know. No 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema utility the description is close to sufficient, but with no annotations it should still note whether the call is side-effecting only (launching a browser) and whether it returns anything an agent can act on.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly says nothing about inputs.

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 (open) plus resource (the local ledger page) and where it opens (the system browser). It is distinguishable from `show`/`help` only indirectly, via the mention that the page polls for the latest *show* result, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you want the live-updating view in a browser rather than terminal output. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over the sibling `show` tool, nor any precondition such as a running local ledger server.

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