browser_find_text

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, yet it only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., highlighting matches, scrolling to results) or the return format. It also does not clarify whether the operation is read-only.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action, making it highly concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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 description is minimal and lacks essential context such as what happens after text is found (e.g., highlighting, scrolling), whether multiple matches are handled, and how the agent should interpret the outcome. No output schema exists to compensate, leaving significant gaps for a full understanding.

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 100% with the parameter 'text' described as 'Text to find'. The description's phrase 'on the page' adds minimal context beyond the schema, but the schema already fully defines the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Search for text on the page' uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('text on the page'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_get_elements or browser_snapshot, which could also involve text retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_get_elements or browser_snapshot. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or excluded cases.

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