browser_find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is a non-mutating search ('Search...'), the scope ('current page's aria snapshot'), and the output shape (nodes with refs and context). It could add explicit read-only language or clarify behavior on no matches, but the core behavioral traits are transparently conveyed.

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?

One tightly structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then delivers the return value and usage guidance. Every clause earns its place; there is zero redundancy or filler.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it searches, what it returns, and when to use it. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only or explain what happens if no matches are found, but those omissions are minor given the schema's thorough parameter descriptions.

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?

The schema already documents all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, briefly mentioning 'text or a regex' (matching query/regex) and 'surrounding context' (matching context), but ignores ignoreCase and maxMatches. This adds marginal value but does not compensate for anything the schema lacks.

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 verb and resource: 'Search the current page's aria snapshot for text or a regex.' It also names the return value (matching nodes with refs and surrounding context), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like browser_snapshot or browser_get_visible_text. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 contrasts with a sibling: 'cheaper than a full browser_snapshot when you only need to locate an element.' This tells the agent both when to use this tool and what alternative to prefer in other situations. The guidance is direct and actionable.

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