browser_read_page

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return surface (título, URL, texto, links), which is valuable, but it never states that the call is non-mutating, whether it triggers navigation, or how max_text_length truncates output.

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, front-loaded with the action and the returned fields, ending with the usage hook. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth; it covers purpose, return fields and usage timing adequately. It leaves gaps on the required task_description marker, the text-length limit, and the guarantee that the page is not altered by reading.

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 only 33% — include_links and max_text_length have no schema description. The phrase 'lista dos links disponíveis' indirectly maps to include_links, but max_text_length (default 3000, truncation behavior) is never mentioned, and the required [AGENT-BROWSER-TASK] prefix convention for task_description is not restated.

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?

Concrete verb+resource combination ('Lê o conteúdo atual da página') followed by an explicit inventory of what is returned (título, URL, texto visível, links). It is distinguishable from the siblings because it reads rather than navigates, clicks or fills, though no sibling is named.

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?

'Usar para entender o estado da página antes de agir' gives a clear selection context: this is the inspection step that precedes interaction. It stops short of explicit exclusions or pointing to alternatives such as browser_screenshot for visual state.

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