solve_and_continue

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true but reveal nothing about the interactive/non-interactive distinction, the visible-window/dashboard fallback, or the session-bound nature of the challenge. The description adds all of these. It stops short of stating auth requirements or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Four sentences, each front-loaded with a distinct payload: what it does, why it beats siblings, when to reach for it, and what happens with stuck widgets. No 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?

For a 5-param mutation tool with no output schema but rich annotations, the description covers the full decision path (trigger, alternatives, return semantics, stuck-widget escalation) an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, their defaults and formats. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb and resource ('Solve the captcha on a blocked page in place') and explicitly contrasts its return value with the three sibling solver tools (solve_turnstile, solve_recaptcha_v2, solve_hcaptcha) that return a bare token. This is exactly the differentiation needed when the sibling toolset contains four captcha solvers.

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 trigger: 'Use after web_fetch returns `blocked_reason` with a captcha widget.' Explicit alternative guidance: 'The right choice whenever the goal is the content' vs the sibling solvers when only a token is needed. It even addresses the edge case of non-interactive vs human-required widgets and where to look (web_status).

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