search_browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: "Side effects: none" declares the operation is a read, and the edge-case note about traversal being capped by depth, children, visited nodes, and result limit warns the agent that results may be partial. It stops short of describing return contents or any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then uses labeled sections (Side effects, Example, Edge cases) with no filler. Well-sized for a three-parameter tool.

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?

Covers the safety profile and traversal bounds, which is the most important missing context given no annotations and no output schema. Still leaves the agent without any indication of what the search returns or what category_type values are valid.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The example maps positional arguments (query="Operator", category_type="instruments", limit=25), which clarifies the meaning of category_type beyond the bare schema. However, the meaning of category_type and limit semantics are never stated in prose, leaving gaps.

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+resource ("Search the Live Browser") that is distinct from sibling read tools like get_browser_categories and get_track_list. It does not, however, explicitly say how it differs from get_browser_categories, which also concerns the browser.

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?

Usage is only implied, via the example ``search_browser("Operator", "instruments", 25)`` finds native devices, which gives a concrete scenario. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named.

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