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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns trimmed innerText, auto-detects iOS Safari vs Android Chrome, and throws if the target does not resolve. It doesn't cover multi-element or waiting behavior, but for a read-only getter the key behaviors are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, tight, with the main purpose in the first sentence. No filler, and every sentence 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?

Covered: target selection (selector/ref), platform scope, use case, failure mode, and explicit sibling alternatives. The parameter schema is fully documented, and the return type is obvious (string).

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 coverage is 100% with detailed property descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the ref/selector trade-off: 'A ref points straight at the element it was issued for, so it survives markup that shifted position, and it can address elements no CSS selector can reach from the top of the page.'

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 states a specific action: 'Get the visible text (innerText, trimmed) of an element in the device browser page, by CSS selector or by a ref.' It also names alternatives ('For full HTML use webpage_get_dom; for many elements at once use webpage_snapshot'), which distinguishes it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it: 'For reading a label/status/result after an action.' It also tells what to use instead for other needs, naming specific sibling tools like webpage_get_dom and webpage_snapshot.

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