Warm Domain Session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context not present in annotations: it mentions the action of collecting cookies (side effect) and the failure mode on strict WAFs. It also notes a credit cost of 15, which is useful operational behavior. It doesn't detail the full session storage mechanics but provides enough beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a usage condition and caveat. Every sentence carries useful information with zero waste or repetition.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description gives key context: when to use it, its limitation with WAFs, and its cost. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., session ID or job status), but given the annotations and schema richness, this is still a fairly complete description. Slight gap on output behavior prevents a 5.

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 100%, meaning all five parameters already have descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, but it does not need to because the schema covers them. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Automated browser warmup to collect cookies for later scrapes'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling manual tool 'metalift_seed_session' by stating when it should be used instead. This is a clear and differentiated purpose.

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 explicitly provides a usage condition: 'Use when manual metalift_seed_session is not possible'. It also states a limitation: 'often fails on strict WAFs', which serves as a caution. This gives both when to use and when to avoid, plus names the alternative.

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