browser_find

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the return format (matching nodes with surrounding context and paths) and the cost benefit. It does not contradict annotations and gives users clear expectations of the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause adds useful information (return format, context, cost comparison, parameter rules). There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how it works. It mentions search context, paths, and the fact that it's cheaper than a full snapshot, making it operationally complete for an agent.

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 schema already describes both parameters thoroughly, and the description further clarifies semantics: text is case-insensitive substring, regex is case-sensitive with flag syntax. It also reinforces the either/or constraint, adding value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches the accessibility snapshot for text or regex, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_snapshot by highlighting that it's cheaper and yields targeted context.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when you only need to locate an element and its ref, contrasting with capturing the whole snapshot. It also provides the rule to provide either text or regex, not both, which is essential for correct invocation.

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