find_element_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what is returned (tag name, text, outer HTML), how best_match resolves multiple text matches, and that timeout waits for the element to appear. It does not mention error behavior when the element never appears or which element is chosen when a selector matches multiple nodes, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output, followed by a focused Args section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema details.

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?

For a read-only 3-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call behavior, return content, and parameter semantics. It is slightly incomplete around timeout/not-found error handling and explicit differentiation from nearby get_text/get_element_html tools, but overall it gives an agent enough to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains selector as either a CSS selector or visible-text matcher in CDP mode, best_match as choosing the element whose text length is closest to the search text, and timeout as seconds to wait for the element. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find one element and return its tag name, text, and outer HTML.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_all_info, which returns multiple elements, and get_element_html or get_text, which return only one piece of the output.

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 implies usage: use this when you need one element's tag name, text, and outer HTML in a single call. It also explains selector-versus-text matching in CDP mode, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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