browser_read_html

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is uncapped and can return tens of thousands of characters, it returns the whole reduced page, and it explains why (cutting markup would break tags). It also details how each mode alters the output. This goes beyond what annotations would typically cover and fully informs the agent of the tool's 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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then usage context, then mode details, then size caveat, and ends with alternatives. Every sentence serves a distinct informative purpose, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized given the complexity of the tool.

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 description covers all essential aspects for correct usage: purpose, when to use, mode semantics, output size expectations, and explicit routing to alternatives. Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, so it is complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema provides no description for the 'mode' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining each mode: 'form' keeps interactive surface, 'text' returns prose alone, 'full' keeps structure with noise removed. This adds rich semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, making the parameter fully understandable.

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 what the tool does: returns the page's HTML cleaned down to readable content, and explicitly differentiates it from siblings by contrasting with browser_snapshot (flat inventory) and browser_read_text (capped text). The verb 'read' and resource 'HTML' are specific, and the purpose 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?

It explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this when the STRUCTURE matters' and gives concrete examples. It also provides exclusion guidance by naming alternatives and the conditions for choosing them: 'Reach for browser_snapshot when you only need something to click, or browser_read_text when you only need the words.' This is exemplary usage guidance.

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