validate_page

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it performs navigation (mutation), waits for a selector, captures console errors, and returns a summary. Annotations are not very informative (openWorldHint=true), but the description adds valuable context beyond them. No contradiction.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, two for usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no 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 no output schema, the description mentions return fields (title, errors, interactive count, body sample). It covers the core use case well. Minor gap: no mention of error handling on navigation failure, but overall sufficient for the complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, but it contextualizes the parameters within the composite action. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a composite health check combining navigation, waiting, console error capture, and returning a structured summary. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like navigate and read_page by emphasizing its composite nature.

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?

Explicitly provides 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' guidelines, directing the agent to use this tool for a single-call health check instead of chaining multiple tools, and to use navigate + read_page when full DOM content is needed.

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