Find in page

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with that by disclosing that the cursor moves and the match is spoken. Beyond the annotations it adds the dialog-free behavior, the browse-mode prerequisite, and the F3 continuation. It does not say what happens when no match is found, which keeps it below 5.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then the prerequisite and alternative. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 six-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the state-changing cursor behavior, the browse-mode requirement, and the routing to a safer sibling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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%, so text, reverse, from_start, case_sensitive, settle_ms and timeout_ms are all already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics on direction, case handling, or timing bounds, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: move NVDA's browse-mode cursor to the next match and read that line, plus the analogue NVDA+control+f. It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming nvda_get_text with contains as the non-moving alternative.

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 an explicit prerequisite (a web page or document in browse mode) and an explicit alternative path (nvda_get_text with contains) for the case where the cursor should not move. It also tells the agent how to continue the search afterwards via NVDA+F3.

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