Pause for a human

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that the tool brings the browser to the front, tells the operator what to do, blocks until the challenge clears or timeoutSeconds elapses, returns a fresh snapshot, and requires headed mode. It also warns about profile flagging. 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by use cases, a critical warning, mechanics, and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds unique information, and there is no padding or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: when to invoke it, what it does, how it behaves, what the operator sees, return behavior, and prerequisites. Schema fills the remaining param details. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning to timeoutSeconds and reason (operator message) but does not deeply elaborate each parameter. It meets the baseline without adding substantial value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource ('Hand control to a person and wait') and immediately enumerates concrete use cases (CAPTCHA, Cloudflare check, login wall, 2FA/OTP, SMS, payment). It distinguishes itself from the sibling browser_wait_for by explicitly stating it is for human-required actions and warns against attempting to solve CAPTCHAs automatically.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with a concrete list of scenarios, and when-not-to-use by instructing not to try solving CAPTCHAs automatically. It also clarifies the headless requirement, giving clear exclusions and prerequisites. This is exemplary usage direction.

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