browser_find

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, open world), the description details the output format: 'matching snapshot nodes with a few lines of surrounding context (like search snippets), each shown under its path from the root.' This clarifies what the agent receives and that it's cheaper than a full snapshot. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second describes output and benefit. No redundant words, information is front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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?

Despite missing output schema, the description sufficiently describes return format and performance characteristic. Parameters are fully documented in schema. Annotations cover safety. The tool is simple and the description is complete for an agent to understand usage and outcome.

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 covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (text: case-insensitive substring; regex: flags via slashes). The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, and distinguishes it from browser_snapshot by emphasizing it's cheaper for locating elements. The verb 'search' and resource 'accessibility snapshot' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description implies when to use (locating an element and its ref cheaply) and contrasts with capturing full snapshot. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose text vs regex, nor name sibling alternatives like browser_snapshot directly. Still provides good context.

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