browserless_account

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it reads data tied to the current API token and never returns API token values. This goes beyond the annotations with a meaningful security-relevant guarantee.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the resource, the exact data available, the supported question types, and an important safety guarantee in just two sentences. Every clause earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with a full input schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data the tool returns, how to select the sub-reading via examples, and that no credentials are exposed, which is sufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 action enum and _prompt are already well documented. The description adds conceptual mapping between user questions and the action, but does not substantially extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 is highly specific: it names the exact resource (Browserless account behind the current API token) and the exact information returned (plan, unit balance, billing period, API key names). It also cites concrete user questions the tool answers, making its purpose unmistakable and easily distinguishable from operation-focused siblings.

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 clearly states when to use the tool by mapping it to natural-language questions like 'what plan am I on' and 'which keys exist'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or describe when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route to it correctly.

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