Runs cookie robot for specified browser profiles.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the side effect that a browser instance is launched per profile and pages are actually visited, but it omits that this is a long-running/async job, whether profiles must be idle first, and whether it blocks. There is also tension with openWorldHint=false, since visiting caller-supplied URLs reaches external sites.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mechanism; nothing is redundant. The 'This method starts' opener is slightly padded but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema and 7 parameters, the description should say more about outcome and lifecycle for a job that launches browsers (e.g., that it runs asynchronously and how to check progress). It never tells the agent what to expect back or how to know the run finished, and does not point at status-related siblings.

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%, so the seven parameters (profile IDs, urls, loadImages, shuffleUrls, workspaceId, min/maxVisitTimeSeconds) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'specified browser profiles' and 'provided URLs' and adds no extra meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (starts) and resource (the cookie robot) and explains the mechanism: it opens each profile's browser and visits the given URLs to collect cookies. That is enough to separate it from cookie-file siblings like import_cookies/export_cookies, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when you want cookies harvested by browsing rather than by importing a cookie file), but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no mention of the alternative route import_cookies. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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