browser_navigate_back

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the bare operation – it doesn't say what happens when there is no history entry (no-op vs. error), whether it waits for load, or how it interacts with session state.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and contains no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the core meaning.

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-required-parameter navigation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is the absence of failure/no-history behavior, which is minor given the annotations cover the mutation profile.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (sessionId) documented at 100% schema coverage, including the 'omit to use the active session' default. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies – the schema does the work.

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 (go back) and resource (previous page in browser history), making the operation unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling browser_navigate (forward navigation to a URL), but the distinction is obvious from the wording.

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 by the phrase 'previous page in the history' – an agent can infer this is for retreating one step in session history. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus browser_navigate, nor any note about the condition when no prior history exists.

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