Verify and resume

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates local state; the description's 'resume its agent lifecycle' is consistent with that. It adds the re-inspection behavior but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the challenge is in fact not clear, so beyond-annotation value is modest.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the precondition trailing, with no filler. It could be marginally more efficient by naming the gating action/alternative, but there is no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials, and annotations carry the safety profile. But among six near-identical captcha siblings, it fails to state how this differs from captcha_inspect or captcha_wait, and is silent on failure behavior, which is exactly the gap that matters here.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents session_id fully. The description's phrase 'existing browser session' only loosely reinforces that the id must refer to a live session, adding no real syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('re-inspect', 'resume') with the resource ('existing browser session', 'agent lifecycle'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It gestures at the difference from captcha_inspect via 're-inspect', but never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 precondition 'only after the challenge is clear' supplies an implied when-to-use condition, which is better than nothing. However, it does not say what to do when the challenge is not yet clear (captcha_wait, captcha_handoff, captcha_complete are all plausible alternatives) and names no alternative tool, leaving routing to inference.

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