go

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does communicate the key intended workflow: navigate, then extract via extract/text/html/map. However, it does not say anything about side effects, session persistence, failure modes, or what the tool actually returns after navigation, which leaves clear gaps.

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 first sentence is front-loaded with the core verb, resource, and companion tools, while the second lists concrete trigger cases. The second sentence is a bit long, but each item earns its place and the description avoids filler.

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 navigation command, the description covers the main use cases and is sufficiently open-ended for an agent to know when to invoke it. It lacks an explicit statement of return behavior or output semantics, but no output schema exists, and the surrounding sibling-tool context covers the broader workflow.

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 schema already covers all 5 parameters, and the description adds no parameter-specific details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema is doing the explanatory work; the description's role is broader usage guidance rather than parameter enrichment.

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 the tool navigates to a URL in a stealth browser and that it pairs with extract/text/html/map. It names several triggers and mentions explore as a co-option, but it does not sharply distinguish go from explore or other browsing siblings, so it is not a full 5.

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 is explicit about when to reach for this tool: when WebFetch/curl is blocked by 403s, Cloudflare/DataDome challenges, login/paywalls, or JavaScript-only pages, and when a real browser is needed. It names the alternative class (WebFetch/curl) and the behavioral conditions, leaving little ambiguity about context.

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