Check Browser/Runtime Compatibility

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that it fetches live data from MDN Web Docs and caniuse.com, providing transparency about external dependencies and dynamic results. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage examples and alternatives, and reinforcing the feature string requirement. It is concise, well-structured, and free of redundancy.

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 moderate complexity, the combination of description and schema provides comprehensive guidance. All parameters are described, the data sources are mentioned, and usage examples are given. No additional information is necessary for effective use, though an output format note would be a minor enhancement.

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?

The input schema describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the critical clarification that the 'feature' parameter expects a feature string, not a library name, which enhances understanding beyond the schema. This additional semantic guidance justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 defines the tool as checking browser and runtime compatibility for web APIs, CSS, and JS syntax. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes itself from siblings like gt_get_docs and gt_best_practices by stating it is for feature-level compatibility queries.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (questions about browser/runtime support) and when not to (general library docs or best practices). It provides example queries and names alternative tools for different purposes.

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