firefox_find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful notion of "fresh references" (implying staleness of prior lookups), but says nothing about match ambiguity, whether hidden/offscreen elements are included, or what a reference looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the result contract placed at the end where it belongs. It is arguably too sparse rather than padded, which is a completeness problem, not a conciseness one.

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?

With no output schema, an open-world tool, and two of three parameters undocumented, the description should explain what a returned reference is and how to use it. Instead it stops at one sentence, leaving the agent to guess about tab/frame scoping and result shape.

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 only 33%: only `text` is documented. The description says "by text" but never explains `tabId` (required) or `frameId`, and frame scoping matters given a firefox_frames sibling. It fails to compensate for the documented-parameter gap.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Find") with a specific resource ("observable elements by text") and states the output contract ("fresh references"), so an agent knows this is a DOM-query tool, not an action. It does not name or distinguish itself from potential siblings such as firefox_inspect or firefox_click, leaving overlap to inference.

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 only implied: the phrase "return fresh references" hints that this is a discovery step whose results feed a later action and that older references go stale. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of firefox_inspect, and no statement of prerequisites like an attached tab.

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