find_in_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds case-insensitivity and that offsets are relative to get_text. It does not disclose regex behavior, default match cap, or whether matches are truncated.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and the cost trade-off, no filler. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the get_text offset linkage is a nice touch. But with zero schema coverage, the four parameters remain largely unexplained, leaving a real gap for a tool with a regex switch and a cap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all four parameters and it only alludes to one ('surrounding context'). regex, max_matches, and the query syntax are left entirely undefined.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus resource (page text) plus output shape (matching snippets), and it explicitly contrasts with reading the whole page, which routes it against the sibling get_text. An agent can distinguish it from snapshot/get_text/extract_structured purely from the description.

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?

'far cheaper than reading the whole page' gives a clear selection rule versus get_text, and the stated case-insensitivity removes a common ambiguity. It stops short of saying when to prefer regex mode or when a full read is still required.

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