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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return payload (element center coordinates) and the critical behavioral detail that coordinates are in PHYSICAL pixels and require no scaling before device_tap.

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 action and matching modes, followed by the return-value contract. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return value and the pixel-scaling caveat needed to chain into device_tap. Minor gap: the resourceId match mode is unmentioned and no behavior on zero/multiple matches is given.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'visible text' and 'content description' but omits the resourceId parameter entirely, adding little beyond the schema.

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 (find) and resource (UI element on an Android device) with the matching criteria (visible text or content description). The Android qualifier helps separate it from ios_find_element and session_find_element, though it does not differentiate from near siblings like device_wait_for_element or device_elements_in_region.

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 'use directly with device_tap (no scaling needed)' clause implies the intended follow-up action, which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives (wait_for_element, elements_in_region, tap_by_text) and no stated preconditions or when-not conditions.

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