Delegate a goal to the browser

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the agent knows the page, the signed-in session, and form semantics — important auth/context information. But it omits whether the call returns immediately or produces a task to poll, failure behavior, and rate limits, leaving a real gap for a delegation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the differentiating rationale. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 delegation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and preference well but is silent on the return contract (task handle vs. completed result) and how to follow up. Given the presence of task_status and answer_task siblings, this omission leaves the agent's next step ambiguous.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the 'plain language' nature of the goal parameter but adds no syntax, format, or tabId semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (hand the browser agent) and resource (a goal in plain language), and explicitly positions itself against the low-level browser_* siblings by saying 'prefer this over driving the browser yourself.' An agent can distinguish it from browser_click/browser_fill/browser_navigate without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule and a when-not ('you never need to see the page'), routing the agent away from the manual browser_* tools. It does not, however, mention the async workflow or point to task_status/answer_task for retrieving the result, which are the obvious follow-ups.

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