Touchpoint

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses critical behaviors: results are 'ranked by match quality', returns 'element IDs', and explains complex 'source' parameter options ('full', 'ax', 'native', 'dom') which determine underlying accessibility tree used. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly declare read-only nature, though implied by context.

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose statement, followed by behavioral details, usage tip, then parameter reference. The Args section is necessarily detailed given zero schema coverage; no wasted sentences, though density is high.

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?

Comprehensive for an 8-parameter search tool. Mentions key output (element IDs) appropriate given existence of output schema. Covers complex filtering (app, window_id, role, states, source) and explains fields/search scope semantics without redundancy.

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 has 0% description coverage (titles only). Description compensates perfectly with an 'Args:' section documenting all 8 parameters with examples (e.g., 'Send Message'), constraints ('ALL these states'), and domain values ('button', 'text_field'), fully compensating for the schema deficit.

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?

States 'Search for UI elements by name' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'get_element' (likely by ID) and 'elements' (listing) by emphasizing text-based search and 'match quality' ranking, though explicit contrast with siblings would strengthen it further.

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?

Provides operational guidance: 'Use the FULL visible text for best results' with concrete example ('Send Message' vs 'Send'). Establishes workflow context by noting returns are 'element IDs that you can use with click, set_value, etc.' Lacks explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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