browser_read_text

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses truncation behavior, the default limit, how truncation is signaled in the output, and the browser isolation semantics ('they share nothing'). Missing: nothing about permissions, timing, or what happens if the selector matches nothing, which a read tool could usefully state.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then routing, then truncation, then environment. No sentence is filler, and each paragraph adds a distinct fact an agent needs.

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, so the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on scoping, truncation, and environment isolation. For a zero-annotation, zero-covered-schema tool, this is as complete as a description can be.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains selector narrowing, clarifies max_chars and its 6000 default with truncation marking, and explains the browser default ('main unless you say support') plus the isolation semantics. The only gap is that neither source documents what the selector syntax accepts.

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 operation (read the visible text of an element, markup stripped), which is clearly distinct from sibling browser_read_html (structure) and browser_snapshot (clickable elements). An agent can route between the three read tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and named alternatives: 'Narrow the selector when you know where the answer is; use browser_read_html instead when the structure matters, or browser_snapshot when you need something to click.' This is exactly the routing guidance the sibling set demands.

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