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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: matching spans iframes ('frames included') and results include element numbers plus each matching text line, which is what an agent needs to decide whether this beats a full read.

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 sentences, zero redundancy, front-loaded with the core action before the routing advice. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (element numbers and matched text lines) and discloses cross-frame scope. What is missing is minor: behavior on zero matches, result caps, or whether hidden elements are included.

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 `text` documented as 'Words to look for, any case' and `kind` documented with an enum and default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little framing about matching against labels and text lines, but does not explain the `kind` filter's effect on results, so it does not exceed the schema meaningfully.

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 and scope: finds `text` across the whole current page, 'frames included', and describes both what is matched (element labels and text lines) and what is returned (element numbers). This is clearly distinct from cotlet_browser_read and cotlet_browser_scroll, which it implicitly contrasts with.

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 concrete usage rule: 'Use it instead of reading or scrolling a long page for one thing,' which tells the agent when this tool beats its closest siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling tools directly or stating when-not to use it (e.g., for structural exploration), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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