dat_browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses sync/async behavior, default mode, return format (result and screenshot URLs), and mentions optional parameters that affect behavior (fanout, country routing, session grouping, screenshot modes). It does not mention destructive potential or authentication needs, but the nature of the tool implies read/write possibilities in browsing. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default wait time and polling pattern.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, describing output, and explaining modes. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and highly efficient with zero wasted words.

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?

While the description covers the main task and sync/async modes, it lacks details on error handling, return value structure (since no output schema is provided), rate limits, and authentication. For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context on expected results and edge cases to fully inform an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description only briefly mentions async mode and timeouts (up to 10 min in sync), adding marginal semantic value beyond parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on other parameters like fanout, country_iso, or screenshots_mode in the prose itself.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs browser automation tasks from natural language instructions on dat.ai, and specifies that it returns results and screenshot URLs. It distinguishes sync and async modes but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the role is evident.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use sync vs async mode, including details that sync waits up to 10 minutes and async returns an ID immediately for polling with dat_browse_status. However, it does not discuss when to choose this tool over siblings like dat_browse_screenshot, though the sibling relationship suggests they are complementary rather than alternatives.

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