Run a goal

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the policy selects operations and targets autonomously, it consumes model quota, it runs isolated in a new tab, and the call returns a trace. Annotations already flag destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat them, though it never warns that the autonomous policy may take irreversible web actions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, with no padding. The trailing clause about --jev-decider is poorly anchored and slightly muddies an otherwise tight description.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly says a trace is returned, and it covers autonomy, quota cost, and isolation — the key facts for a non-idempotent, destructive open-world tool. It could still say more about failure/timeout behavior or how long a run may take.

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% and both parameters (url, goal) are already documented in the schema, so the description adds no new parameter meaning. The mention of '--jev-decider' is not a schema parameter, which risks confusing an agent into trying to pass it as an argument.

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 concrete verb and resource: it runs one goal through the browser policy in its own tab and returns the resulting trace. The phrase 'in its own tab' and 'the page this session already has open is left untouched' distinguishes it implicitly from browser_act, though it never names a sibling outright.

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 isolation detail ('left untouched') and quota cost imply this is for autonomous, self-contained multi-step goals rather than direct page manipulation. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of browser_act when…' statement or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with browser_act and browser_page.

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