Browser Find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly reveals that by default it searches only actionable elements (links, buttons, fields, headings, images) and that include_structural=true expands to containers, plus the performance advantage over snapshots. It does not mention read-only safety or error behavior, but 'search' implies a non-mutating operation, and these disclosures are meaningful beyond the empty 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical efficiency note and filtering detail. Every sentence adds value without fluff. It is appropriately sized and structured for quick agent consumption.

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 the output schema exists and likely documents the return format, the description covers the primary search behavior and the include_structural option. It misses explicit details on limit/tab/session, but these are common across sibling browser tools and have defaults. The description is complete enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool for its core use case.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pattern (regex ok), role (ARIA role), and include_structural (matches containers), but omits limit, tab, and session parameters entirely. With six parameters, covering only three leaves the agent needing to infer default behavior for the rest, which is a partial compensation. The default limit of 20 is not mentioned, nor how to select a specific tab or session.

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 current page for elements matching a text pattern (regex) and/or ARIA role, and returns matching element refs. It distinguishes itself from a full snapshot by noting it is 'cheaper' and from extraction tools by implying a search use case. The verb 'search' and specific resource 'current page' are precise.

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 recommends using this tool when you 'know what you're looking for' rather than taking a full snapshot, providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly name other alternatives like browser_extract_text, but the context is sufficient to guide an agent. It omits any when-not-to-use guidance for scenarios like needing page text extraction without element refs.

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