Query Elements

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly focuses on semantics beyond safety: text matching is substring, exact matches are ranked first, and passing exact requires a full match. This is valuable behavioral information that prevents incorrect assumptions about selector matching.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the tool and return format, the second establishes its role, and the third explains the matching behavior. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields and the core matching behavior. It covers the tool's primary use, key return semantics, and the exact-match special case. It does not describe shape of results or enumeration behavior, but these are reasonably standard for an element-query tool.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters at 100% coverage. The description's note about text= matching and exact matches is useful but largely restates what the schema's selector and exact fields already say, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Find elements and return structured details,' and lists the exact fields returned (text, value, href, visibility, disabled state, attributes). It also positions itself as 'the main way to see what is on a page before acting on it,' which gives it a distinct role among read-oriented siblings like get_html and get_page_content.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is the primary way to inspect a page before taking action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but 'main way' signals preferred usage over sibling tools. Missing explicit when-not-to-use keeps it from a 5.

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