find_repeating_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only scan operation ('scan the current page') and describes the return format, which implies no page mutation. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior or limitations like handling dynamic content, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 appropriately concise, with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance in the second. Every sentence earns its place, no redundant information or filler.

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 covers the tool's purpose, usage workflow, and return value shape, and it references the output schema. However, the complete omission of the min_count parameter prevents it from being fully complete, even though the tool is simple and the output schema exists.

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 input schema has one parameter, min_count, with no description (0% schema coverage). The description never mentions min_count, leaving the agent without any clue about its meaning or effect. Since the schema is not self-explanatory, the description was required to compensate but failed entirely.

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 states the tool scans the current page for repeated sibling elements and returns candidate CSS selectors with a count and text sample. It specifies the exact resource (current page) and action (scan and return selectors), clearly differentiating itself from sibling tools by mentioning its role in discovering selectors for get_list.

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 explicitly says to use it on unfamiliar sites instead of eyeballing raw HTML, and instructs the agent to pick a promising selector and feed it to get_list. This provides both when-to-use context and a concrete integration path with a sibling tool.

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