Read a captured response body

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: the ordering dependency on collection, the return shape (base64 plus decoded preview), and the meaning of the 'no such network data' error. It stops short of covering limits such as large/truncated bodies or how long stored bodies survive.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return shape, then the ordering constraint, then the error diagnosis. Nothing is redundant with the title or the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating exactly what comes back (raw base64 plus decoded preview) and how to interpret the main error. Minor gaps remain around body size/truncation and storage lifetime, which an agent might need for large or binary responses.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents requestId and its origin. The description reinforces the id source and adds the temporal constraint (id must be from a request that occurred after collection started), which is marginal added value over the schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Read the stored body of one request') and even names the underlying protocol call (network.getData, dataType response). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling that stores bodies (browser_collect_response_body) and the sibling that supplies ids (browser_network_requests).

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?

States the precondition explicitly ('The request must have happened AFTER browser_collect_response_body ran') and routes id lookup to browser_network_requests. It also names the failure mode and what to check, which effectively covers when-not-to-use / what to fix.

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