browse_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains that it opens a headless browser, waits for the document, returns text (not screenshots), includes the final URL and title, and explicitly states it does not log in or fill forms. This is highly transparent about side effects and limitations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case. Every sentence adds value: the first establishes what and when, the second clarifies output format and exclusions. No wasted words and well-structured for quick parsing.

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 that all parameters are documented in the schema, the output format is explained in the description, and there is no explicit output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers return values, limitations, and waiting behavior. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for this straightforward tool. Minor gaps in edge-case coverage keep it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond the schema: it mentions 'cleaned markdown (or links/title only)' which clarifies what extract does, and implies that wait is for waiting. However, it does not provide new syntax or format details beyond the schema's own descriptions, so it stays at the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving content of a live public web page. It specifies the action (opens in headless browser), the resource, and the output (title, final URL, cleaned markdown). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns text not screenshots and doesn't log in or fill forms, making it easy for an agent to differentiate.

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 opens with a clear 'when to use' condition: 'when you need the content of a live public web page.' It also implicitly states when not to use it by saying 'Does not log in or fill forms.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like extract_links or search_page, so it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance. Still, the context is clear.

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