browser_read_html

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and destructive=false, so the description needs to add operational behavior. It does: the tool returns a cleaned, uncapped page that can be tens of thousands of characters, and it explains why the output is not cut (broken markup). That is useful context beyond the annotations, though things like error behavior or format details are left to the output schema.

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 text is paragraph-heavy but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, mode semantics, and a size caveat before pointing to the sibling. It is not as snappy as it could be, but it is not bloated either.

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 that an output schema is present and annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the remaining ground: purpose, mode differences, uncapped/truncated behavior, and sibling routing. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 only describes the 'browser' parameter and gives no detail on 'mode', but the description fully explains the mode values: 'form' keeps the interactive surface, 'text' returns prose alone, 'full' preserves structure while removing noise and attribute soup. The browser parameter is adequately covered by the schema description, so the description adds value where the schema is silent.

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 verb and resource: 'The page's HTML, cleaned down to what is worth reading.' It also differentiates from siblings by explaining what browser_snapshot and browser_read_text do differently, so an agent doesn't need to open their schemas to tell them apart.

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 says to use this tool 'when the STRUCTURE matters' and points to browser_snapshot when the agent only needs something to click. It also calls out browser_read_text as the uncapped alternative. These explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions leave no room for ambiguous selection.

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