browser_find_text_coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool searches across all frames and penetrates shadow DOMs using the Puppeteer engine. It does not mention any side effects, but the tool is inherently read-only.

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 and a follow-up hint, all front-loaded with purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, but the description mentions return values (bounding boxes, text content) and hints at using coordinates with other tools. Parameters are fully covered. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor details: case-insensitive fuzzy match for 'text', default values for 'timeoutMs' and 'visibleOnly'. These are useful but largely covered by the schema descriptions.

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 finds elements matching fuzzy text and returns bounding boxes and text content. It distinguishes itself as a fallback when the AX tree is broken or elements lack semantic meaning, and mentions searching across frames and shadow DOMs.

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?

The description explicitly frames the tool as a 'crucial fallback when the AX tree is broken or an element lacks semantic meaning,' providing strong guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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