browser_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares frame scoping, read-only behavior ('does not click'), per-element text cap (1000 chars), and that results are refs plus pagination. It stops short of explaining what happens on zero matches or how references stay valid across frames.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then matching semantics, then return behavior. No filler, though the terse 'by=id|name|tag is exact' phrasing is slightly compressed for an agent to parse on first read.

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 4 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description covers searching, return shape, and non-destructiveness well, but omits limit/offset semantics and empty-result behavior — gaps an agent would care about for a paginated search tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains the `by` modes (id|name|tag exact vs text), and clarifies that text search covers own text, aria-label/title/alt but excludes form values. However `limit` and `offset` are never explained beyond the vague phrase 'pagination', leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource: 'Find visible elements in the current frame', and adds scope that separates it from snapshot-based enumeration ('including regions absent from the control snapshot'). It also distinguishes itself from browser_click via 'does not click', though it never names the sibling tools directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'reaches regions absent from the control snapshot' and 'returns fresh refs' hint you should call it after DOM changes or when a snapshot misses elements, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus browser_snapshot / browser_inspect_element, and no exclusions.

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