search_browser_item_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds important behavioral context: results are not reverified against current Live content and do not represent native Live collections, warning the agent about potential staleness. This goes beyond the annotations and is valuable.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat follows. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and limitations. It does not mention return format or pagination, but those are often implied for search operations. The caveat about staleness is crucial and is included. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 75% (root, tags, favorite have descriptions; limit does not). The description mentions 'tags and favorites', which maps to those parameters, but it does not add detail about limit or root beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('saved private browser item tags and favorites'), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_browser_items (which searches current Live content) and get_browser_item_metadata (which fetches metadata for a specific item). The caveat about not being reverified further clarifies its scope.

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 provides context that this tool operates on saved private data, not current Live browser content, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a definitive 'when not to use' rule, leaving some inference to the agent.

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