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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the use of Chrome/Edge via CDP, DOM extraction, and two modes (headless vs. extension). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or resource consumption.

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 well-structured into two paragraphs, each adding distinct information. The first sentence is clear. It is not overly verbose, though some technical details (e.g., CDP) could be condensed.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, siblings, output schema), the description covers core behavior but omits important context like error handling, browser availability, or limitations of DOM extraction. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for return value explanation.

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 coverage is 57% (low), yet the description adds no meaning for the undocumented parameters page, time_range, and deep_mode. The description focuses on search engine and results extraction but does not clarify these three parameters, leaving the agent with no additional insight.

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 'Search the web using a real browser and return structured results,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like web_search_multi or web_search_read_page, leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentions that when the browser-takeover extension is available, the search uses an authenticated session, implying a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides exclusions or when-not guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the ports checked (9222, 9223, 9333) and targeted browsers (Chrome/Edge with remote debugging), and states the return type (JSON list). This provides sufficient transparency about its read-only scanning behavior.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, port details, and return format. No superfluous content.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, how it does it (ports, browsers), and what it returns. It is complete without gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 applies as there is no missing information.

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 the tool scans for browsers with CDP enabled on specific ports. It uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('browsers with CDP enabled'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like web_search or web_search_read_page, which focus on web content retrieval.

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 implies usage when needing to discover Chrome/Edge instances for remote debugging. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context (sibling tools) and specificity make the intended use clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that searches are performed 'in sequence' and results are 'grouped by engine,' which is useful. However, it does not mention failure handling, rate limits, or other behavioral traits that could affect agent decisions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences (21 words) that front-load the core purpose in the first sentence and add detail in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists but is not described. The description covers the basic workflow of multi-engine search and grouping but omits details like error behavior, pagination across engines, or impact of parameters like 'deep_mode'. For a tool with 8 parameters, it is minimally complete.

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 50%, but the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Parameters like 'page', 'time_range', 'deep_mode', and 'deduplicate' remain unexplained in context of multi-engine search, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 the tool searches multiple search engines and combines results. It uses the verb 'search' and resource 'multiple search engines,' and distinguishes from sibling 'web_search' (likely single engine) by specifying multi-engine and grouping.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need results from multiple engines) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides enough context for an agent to differentiate it from siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only says 'return the visible page text' without disclosing behaviors like JavaScript execution, error handling, or limitations (e.g., paywalls, dynamic content). This is a significant gap for a navigation 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), which reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks details on error scenarios, permission requirements, or behavior with invalid URLs. It is minimally adequate for a relatively simple 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (url, max_length). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond 'Navigate to a URL,' which is already implied by the tool name and schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Navigate to a URL and return the visible page text,' specifying the action (navigate, return) and resource (URL, page text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'web_search' which likely executes searches, and other tools with different scopes.

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 includes 'Useful for reading the full content of a search result,' giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it scores slightly below the top tier.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It describes the detection actions and return type accurately. It could be improved by explicitly stating it is non-destructive and read-only, but the current description is reasonably transparent for a status check.

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 concise with three sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence provides necessary information.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers the essential status-checking functionality, it is fully complete for its purpose.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as it adds no superfluous information.

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 it checks browser, bridge, and provider status, listing specific detection targets (CDP instances, bridge extension, provider type). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like web_search which perform searches.

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 implies usage for checking status before other operations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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