Take page snapshot

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the output format (accessibility tree with roles/names/values/states), filtering behavior with verbose, uid stability and invalidation rules, the 200,000 character cap, and the role of uids in interaction. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 a clear opening sentence, followed by usage rationale, output details, uid behavior, and alternative suggestions. Every sentence contributes useful information and none is wasted. The moderate length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is thorough. It covers purpose, use cases, output format, limitations, and alternatives. No significant gaps remain.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The main description references verbose only briefly ("unless verbose is set") and file_path is not mentioned in the main text. The schema already explains the semantics, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Read the page as compact text, with a uid for every element." It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it is the primary way to see a page and the source of uids for interaction tools, while also differentiating from take_screenshot and get_page_content.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: "Prefer it over take_screenshot for anything but a genuine visual check" and "For plain page text without uids, get_page_content is cheaper; to find elements by CSS selector, use query_selector." This clearly states when to use this tool and names alternatives, meeting the highest bar.

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