security_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding a real output-side guarantee: the result will not leak tokens, browser state, or cookies. It stops short of saying whether the limits are static or dynamically evaluated, which would matter for an informational tool.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the safety caveat about tokens/cookies is placed inline where it matters. Nothing is repeated from the title, annotations, or schema.

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 and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it says nothing about the shape of the response (categories of limits, per-capability flags, etc.). Adequate to decide to call it, but not to know what to expect.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with the description, and no parameter meaning is missing.

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?

Names a specific verb ("describe") and a specific resource ("enforced security boundaries and limitations"), so an agent knows this returns policy/limit information rather than state. It is distinguishable from siblings like session_health or browser_capabilities, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those near-neighbours.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to learn what it is not allowed to do. There is no explicit "call this before X" or "use Y instead" routing, and the closest alternatives (session_health, browser_capabilities, tools_catalog) are not mentioned.

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