Observe the enclosing card

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

Description clearly indicates the operation is read-only ('observe just that subtree', 'global look baseline stays untouched'), consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It also explains the return behavior, including fresh ids and the optional siblingRowText in structuredContent.

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 overly verbose, with repeated examples and redundant phrasing such as 'the way from found the price text to here is the clickable title next to it' and 'never merged into the card ids'. A more streamlined description would be clearer and easier to parse.

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?

Despite the verbosity, the description covers important context: when to use the tool, what it returns, and the special structuredContent behavior. It lacks a formal output schema, but the prose sufficiently describes the expected result for an 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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, with 100% coverage. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: climbing from an inner node found by browser_find to its enclosing card and observing that subtree. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by stating it is the right follow-up when actionable context is needed and warns against inferring the card by id arithmetic.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: after browser_find locates an inner node and the user needs its actionable context. It also provides a negative guideline ('never infer the card by id arithmetic'), which helps prevent misuse.

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