find

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior — full-page scope and returning [eN] refs — but leaves out matching semantics (case sensitivity, substring vs. token, result limits, whether stale refs are refreshed), which matter for a search tool in a browser automation flow.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the scope constraint and return format front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still previews the [eN] ref shape. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; the only gap is the undocumented session_id and the unspecified match semantics.

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 carries the burden. It does explain `query` meaningfully (matches label, role, or link, via 'contains' substring semantics), but `session_id` is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ("Search the whole page ... for elements whose label, role or link contains query") and contrasts the scope against the snapshot sibling tool's partial coverage. An agent can distinguish this from snapshot/read_text without opening any schema.

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 parenthetical "not just the first items of the snapshot" gives clear context for when this is preferred over snapshotting. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use read_text or re-run snapshot instead), so it's a clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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