browser_verify_text_visible

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only repeats the core action. It does not explain whether the tool waits, scrolls, returns a boolean, or throws on failure, leaving the agent to guess 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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no padding. However, it is slightly under-specified, but for a simple tool this is efficient rather than wasteful.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description omits return value, visibility definition, and behavior with missing text. Given no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for a complete 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 0%, and the description adds only that 'text' is the text to verify. It does not specify matching semantics (exact match, substring, case sensitivity) or whether it accepts CSS selectors. The description fails to compensate for the blank 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 action (verify) and the subject (text visibility on page). It distinguishes from sibling browser_verify_element_visible by focusing on text rather than element, though it does not explicitly name the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_verify_element_visible or get_accessibility_tree. There is no exclusion criteria or context for choosing it.

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