visit_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a new browser tab is opened, that fresh tool summaries are returned, and that business writes are not authorized. It omits authorization requirements, whether the returned summaries reflect prior calls, and any side effects on existing tabs or session state.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded, the return value in the middle, and the safety caveat last. Nothing is redundant, though the caveat sits in the same breath as the core action rather than being separately skimmable.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the return, and one safety constraint, which is a reasonable minimum. It leaves the return format ('fresh tool summaries') vague and provides no safety profile beyond the write-authorization note, leaving real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must add meaning. It does partly compensate by narrowing the schema's generic 'uri' format to HTTP(S) specifically, but it says nothing about what a valid page URL looks like, whether fragments/query strings matter, or error behavior for non-HTTP schemes.

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 ('Open') and resource ('an HTTP(S) URL in a new browser tab') plus what it returns ('fresh tool summaries'). It is clear on its own, but it never differentiates itself from siblings like inspect_page or pages, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 clause 'this does not authorize business writes' implies a boundary (navigation/read for inspection purposes, not mutation), which is implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings such as inspect_page or pages.

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