click

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond annotations: it discloses that only newly observed diagnostics are returned and that a successful return means the action executed, not that the application verified. That distinction meaningfully shapes how an agent interprets results.

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 dense sentences with no waste; the actionable action and its wait option are front-loaded and the return-semantics caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 the description usefully explains return scope ('only newly observed diagnostics'), which is a real contribution. However, for a nested-object tool with a timeout parameter and zero schema coverage, it omits timeout behavior, failure modes, and session prerequisites, leaving notable gaps.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load. It conveys 'selector' as a CSS target and 'wait_for' as a completion selector, but says nothing about session_id, timeout_ms, or the wait_for state enum values. Two of four parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 ('Click') and resource ('actionable CSS target'), plus an optional wait capability. It is clear but offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like type_text or navigate, which are similarly page-interacting tools.

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 implied rather than stated. The closing note that success does not mean verification passed hints that verify_page may be needed afterward, but no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition is named explicitly.

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