browser.readiness_check

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: it returns pass/warn/fail for specific items and mentions the effect of the mode parameter. It does not describe the return format or error handling, but given the low complexity, this is adequate.

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 sentences: first sentence states purpose and lists checks, second explains the parameter. Front-loaded and concise with no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations), the description is complete. It covers all necessary information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 compensate. It explicitly explains the 'mode' parameter, its two values (normal/confidential), and the effect ('stricter checks'), fully covering the parameter's semantics.

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 clearly states it runs a deployment readiness check and lists specific checks (encryption, operator identity, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all about browser operations, not deployment readiness.

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 context (deployment readiness) and explains the mode parameter for stricter checks. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, the tool's purpose is specific and no sibling overlaps, so usage is clear.

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