find

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: search spans all frames, exact matches are ordered first, and each hit returns as a snapshot line with its ref plus an ' in <heading/landmark>' indented line. No output schema exists, so that return-format disclosure is doing real work. Minor gaps remain on zero-result behavior and limit interplay.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the match semantics, then ordering, then the enumeration special case, then the return shape. No filler and no restatement of the tool title.

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?

For a four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers matching rules, frame scope, ordering, the empty-query mode, and the returned line format. It leaves unaddressed what an agent sees when nothing matches and how limit/truncation is surfaced, which are the only meaningful omissions.

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 100%, so tab, role, limit, and query are all documented in structured fields. The description reinforces the cross-field rule (empty query + role = enumerate) and adds the otherwise-unstated 'case-insensitive substring' semantics, but it does not define the role vocabulary or the ref format beyond naming them. Baseline 3 fits.

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 a concrete verb ('find') plus the exact match surface: case-insensitive substring over accessible name, visible text, placeholder, label, and value, across all frames. The scoping (all frames, smallest element for split text, exact matches first) makes it distinguishable from read/snapshot siblings that dump rather than search.

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?

Gives clear operating context: use an empty query with a role to enumerate every element of that role, and note that exact matches sort first. It never explicitly names an alternative (e.g., 'use snapshot for the full tree' or 'use read for page text'), so the routing decision is inferred rather than stated.

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