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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns only interactive elements and that it is scoped to clickability and location, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as page navigation, viewport handling, or the dismissCookies side effect implied by the parameter, so some behavioral traits remain hidden.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the return value and scope, then follows with usage guidance. Every clause earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 function with four parameters info, no annotations, and no output schema, the description still misses essential operational context: parameter meanings, the dismissCookies behavior, and any caveats about loading or timing. It provides a solid high-level purpose and return shape but is not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the four parameters. The url, width, height, and dismissCookies parameters are not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from schema-level names and types alone. This is a significant gap at this coverage level.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('interactive elements of a page') followed by concrete element types (buttons, links, inputs). It also lists the exact output fields (role, label, CSS selector, pixel coordinates), and by naming capture_context as the alternative it clearly differentiates itself from a sibling tool.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before acting on a page' for computer-use/Set-of-Marks grounding. It also gives the exclusion condition: use it 'instead of capture_context when you only need to know what can be clicked and where.' This is direct, actionable routing with no ambiguity.

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