top_browsers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful data caveat: pre-tracking visits surface as 'Unknown'. However it says nothing about sort direction, return shape, or whether results are a fixed enumeration or dynamic — only the category list and the Unknown handling are covered.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core ranking purpose front-loaded, followed by the data caveat. The enumerated category list is the only slightly expendable content, but it is informative enough to earn 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?

For a simple read-only ranking tool with two optional, well-documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks any return-format or ordering detail, and with no output schema and no annotations the description could reasonably carry more, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (limit, range) are already fully documented with defaults, bounds, and format examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: browsers ranked by pageviews. The enumerated categories (Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc.) clarify the exact dimension being ranked. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the other 'top_*' siblings (top_systems, top_pages, top_countries), but the resource name is 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?

No indication of when to use this vs top_systems, top_pages, top_countries, or get_overview. There is no context about the intended use case (e.g. audience analysis) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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