Click, type, and navigate on a page, then capture the result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the credit cost, extra credit past 10 steps, the shared 24-second budget, the Pro requirement, and the per-step pass/fail report. It does not outline every side-effect possibility of running arbitrary actions on a live page, but the core behavioral constraints are clearly surfaced.

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 compact and front-loaded: cost, what it does, output, prerequisite, access level, and timeout budget are each covered in a single short sentence. No sentence is wasted.

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 the tool's complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: cost, permissions, timeout, prerequisite, and return type. It could be slightly more explicit about how the final page is returned (screenshot vs. markdown), but the schema fills in those details.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions already carry most of the meaning. The description adds helpful context, such as the supported action kinds and the recommendation to call inspect_page for selectors, but it does not add substantial semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action: running a sequence of browser actions and returning the final page plus a per-step pass/fail report. It also names the exact action types (click, type, select, etc.) and distinguishes the tool from siblings by pointing to domscout_inspect_page as the selector-finding step, making its role clear.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: call domscout_inspect_page first, and the tool requires Pro or above. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other output-focused siblings like extract_markdown or capture_screenshot, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guide.

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