browser_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns matching nodes with surrounding context, shows paths from the tree root, and notes the cost savings versus full snapshot. This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear model of execution and output.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core action, then efficiently packs in the return format, context snippets, path display, and cost comparison. Every clause earns its place with no fluff 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?

The tool is simple (two optional parameters, no output schema, read-only). The description explains what it returns, how results are presented, and why you'd use it over a full snapshot. No major gaps remain for an agent to invoke or interpret the tool correctly.

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 100%: both 'text' and 'regex' have detailed descriptions including case sensitivity, substring matching, flags, and mutual exclusivity. The description only reiterates the 'either/or' constraint, adding no new parameter-level insight. Baseline for high coverage is 3, and nothing here lifts it higher.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the accessibility snapshot of the current page for text or a regular expression.' This clearly states what the tool does and immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_snapshot (which captures the whole snapshot) by focusing on search within the snapshot.

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?

The description explains when to prefer this tool: 'cheaper than capturing the whole snapshot when you only need to locate an element and its ref.' This implies the alternative is browser_snapshot. It also provides a crucial usage constraint: 'Provide either text or regex, not both.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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