neuron_search_and_collect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the full action sequence: navigates, types the query, extracts results, optionally clicks next or scrolls for infinite scroll, and returns collected items. It does not mention failure modes, auth requirements, or anti-bot limitations, but the core behavioral contract is clearly stated.

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 three sentences with no fluff: a high-level purpose statement, a concise behavioral breakdown, and a value proposition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and every sentence earns its place.

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 there is no output schema or annotations and the tool has 8 parameters, the description does a solid job of covering the end-to-end workflow and the return concept ('returns all collected items'). It lacks detail on the exact shape of returned items and edge cases like selector failures or login walls, but it is largely complete for an orchestration-style tool.

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 structured schema already documents every parameter. The description adds useful orchestration context—such as typing the query and paginating—but it does not add meaningfully new per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a search on any site and collect results across multiple pages.' It then distinguishes itself from primitive browser siblings by framing the tool as 'one call replaces the typical navigate → find search box → type → extract → scroll → extract → click next → extract chain,' making its composite role unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a multi-step search-and-collect workflow would otherwise be needed. It explicitly references the chain of actions it replaces, providing clear context. It does not name specific alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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