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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: caps output at 40 lines in open_page's format, reports a '+N new' delta since the last look, discloses the ~45 s timeout with the two exact retry responses ('still opening' / 'still working'), and explains the closed-page failure mode. That is unusually rich operational context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and match rule, then prerequisites and failure modes. The quoted retry strings are long but earn their place as verbatim agent-facing signals; overall it is dense but not padded.

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 still conveys result shape (at most 40 lines mirroring open_page's format, plus a new-candidate count) and all failure/timeout behaviors. Only the ordering and precise line format of results remain unspecified, and those are delegated to open_page.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: 'words' is defined as every word needing to match against text/heading/label/id/classes, and 'page' is constrained to an open page in its current state. It doesn't specify word-splitting or case sensitivity, keeping it short of a 5.

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 (candidates on an open page) plus the exact match rule: text, heading, label, id or classes must contain every word. This separates it from siblings like read_panel or screenshot, though the term 'candidates' is never defined, leaving some ambiguity about what is returned.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to an already-open page ('as it is now') and gives an explicit recovery path: if the page can't be read again it is closed, so call open_page. It does not contrast against read_panel/read_workspace for content retrieval, but the precondition and fallback are concrete.

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