browser_screenshot_fullpage

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't. It doesn't say whether the tool returns image data, a file path, or writes to disk; whether it scrolls/stitches the page (a real side effect that can trigger lazy loading and fire scroll handlers); or any size/time limits on tall pages.

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 clause-free sentence with the differentiator ('full-page') front-loaded and the scope clarification immediately after. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.

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 parameterless screenshot tool the remaining unknowns are the return artifact and any capture side effects, and neither is addressed. With no output schema and no annotations, those gaps are left entirely to guesswork, though the core scope statement is sound.

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 schema has nothing to explain and there is no semantic gap to fill. Baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description is needed here.

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 ('Capture') and resource ('full-page screenshot') plus a scope qualifier ('beyond the visible viewport') that implicitly distinguishes it from the plain browser_screenshot sibling. It never names that sibling, but the contrast is inferable without opening a schema.

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 only implied by the parenthetical: choose this over the viewport screenshot when the content extends past the fold. There is no explicit 'use when' or 'prefer X instead' routing, and no note about when full-page capture is wasteful or unreliable (lazy-loaded content, very long pages).

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