interactive_login

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

Annotations are both false (not read-only, not destructive), so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating that it launches Chrome and opens the official authentication portal, indicating an interactive, user-driven login process. It also mentions the goal of capturing member rates. It does not disclose potential wait times, failure modes, or what happens after the browser opens, but the key behavioral trait (interactive browser launch) is covered.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action ('Launch Chrome browser to sign in'), and the second adds necessary context (portal, providers, and purpose: capture member rates). Every word earns its place, and the description is efficient and to the point.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown), so the description need not cover return values. It explains the action, the targeted providers, and the intended result. However, it does not indicate whether the tool waits for user login or returns immediately after launching, nor any prerequisites like user presence. Given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, this is largely sufficient, but a note about the interactive waiting behavior would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, with the 'provider' parameter fully described in the schema including allowed values and default. The description merely reiterates the 'official authentication portal' and the provider list without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Per calibration, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no extra semantic detail.

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 the verb ('Launch Chrome browser') and the resource ('hotel booking provider'), and lists the specific providers (Agoda, Booking.com, Hotels.com). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_login_status by focusing on the act of logging in rather than checking status. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 the tool is used when a user needs to complete a login to capture member rates, giving clear context for its use. However, it does not explicitly exclude the alternative get_login_status or provide a when-not-to-use guidance. Since get_login_status is a direct sibling, the lack of explicit alternative routing is a minor gap, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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