browser_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the workflow (search, read in parallel tabs, rank against goal) but does not mention side effects like opening or leaving browser tabs, whether it requires an existing session, or any state changes. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely manipulates browser 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action. It is concise and avoids fluff. However, it lacks structural elements like explicit use-case context or parameter hints, so it is not perfectly structured for quick agent parsing.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters (one undocumented), the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns, how results are presented, what 'max_pages' controls, or any side effects. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only hints at the 'goal' parameter ('rank them against the goal') but does not explain 'query' or 'max_pages'. 'max_pages' is especially opaque; its role in controlling the number of results or pages is unstated. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a clear verb ('Search'), a resource ('the web'), and outlines the process ('read the best results in parallel tabs, and rank them against the goal'). It is distinct from sibling tools like browser_click or browser_screenshot, but does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling browser tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The agent must infer from the name and description alone, which is insufficient guidance.

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