interact_with_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It discloses that actions are executed sequentially, session cookies carry over automatically, and it returns page data. However, it does not explain the shape of the returned data, failure behavior, or any side effects beyond cookie handling, leaving notable transparency gaps for a stateful interaction 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and result, then a brief note on modes and cookies. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, so the description must clarify return values. 'Return the resulting page data' is vague about the format. It also omits error handling and any prerequisites beyond the URL. For a 6-parameter tool with nested action objects, this is under-specified.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the single-action vs. array distinction and gives a concrete example, but this does not add substantially beyond what the schema already explains for each parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Execute'), specifies the resource ('storefront page'), and defines the scope ('search/click actions in sequence'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scrape_page by emphasizing interaction (actions) rather than passive extraction.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for single or multi-step interactions, with an example flow ('search → filter → click'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of full exclusions guidance.

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