browser_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return format, the path-from-root context lines, and the cost advantage. It omits the filename side effect (writing to a file instead of returning) and any read-only reassurance, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

A single dense sentence with the purpose, return shape, and cost rationale front-loaded. Nothing wasted and no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description explains what comes back (matching nodes with context under their paths). Combined with fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents text, regex, case sensitivity, flags, and mutual exclusivity. The description only references 'text or a regular expression' generically, adding no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (Search) and resource (accessibility snapshot of the current page), plus the return shape (matching nodes with context, under their path from root). It distinguishes itself from browser_snapshot by noting it is cheaper when you only need to locate an element and its ref.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: use this over a full snapshot when you only need to locate an element and its ref. It does not spell out a when-not, but the comparison to browser_snapshot gives an agent clear selection signal.

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