Look at the page

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world safety, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: the exact line format, indentation by nesting, inline refs for clickable links, and truncation signalling via '(+N chars: get_text eN)'. It stops short of stating size limits, error behavior, or how much the margin is.

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?

Front-loaded with what is shown, then the format, then the two interpretation rules (link refs, truncated text, footer). Dense but every sentence conveys a rule the agent needs to read the output; the format sentence is long but not redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description effectively substitutes for one by specifying the header, element lines, refs, link convention, truncation marker, and footer. An agent can parse the result and knows where to go for cut text.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'mode' parameter has a full enum explanation in the schema, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description says nothing about mode, leaving it at the baseline for fully documented params.

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 – 'Show the current tab's viewport (plus a margin) as text' – and immediately clarifies the distinctive output (text with element refs), which separates it from browser_screenshot and browser_get_text in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the format spec reflects the post-navigation 'what's on screen' case, and '(+N chars: get_text eN)' does route the agent to browser_get_text for full text. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and nothing about when to prefer browser_find or browser_screenshot instead.

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