browser_network_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only the coarse shape of the return (headers and body vs. a single part); it says nothing about potentially large or binary bodies, or that output format changes when `filename` is used, which are the traits an agent actually needs here.

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, zero filler, with the primary behavior stated first and the sibling reference second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 carries the return-value burden, and it does state that headers and body come back. It is not fully complete: the exact serialization (text vs. saved file via `filename`) and behavior for large/binary payloads remain unstated, though these are minor for a read-only fetch-by-index tool.

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 baseline would be 3. The description nevertheless adds real semantics beyond the schema by explaining the `part` parameter's effect on the return shape ('or a single part if `part` is set') and by tying `index` to the sibling tool's printed numbering.

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 and resource ('Returns full details (headers and body) of a single network request') plus the conditional variant when `part` is set. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling lister browser_network_requests, so an agent can tell list-vs-detail without opening either schema.

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 second sentence routes the agent to the correct prerequisite tool ('Use the number from browser_network_requests'), establishing the intended workflow. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., don't use for listing, or what to do when the index is out of range), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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