browser_find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search operates on the accessibility snapshot (not the live DOM), returns matching nodes with surrounding context, displays them under a path from the root, and notes the performance benefit. It does not mention edge cases like no matches, but it provides solid behavioral context for a basic search tool.

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 a single sentence that packs in the action, target, return format, and a cost comparison. Every clause adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns (nodes with surrounding context, shown under paths), and why it is beneficial (cheaper than full snapshot). Since there is no output schema, the return shape is described well. It is complete for a search tool of this complexity.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains each parameter (text is a case-insensitive substring match; regex supports flags; sessionId described). The description's phrase 'text or a regular expression' adds no extra meaning beyond what the property descriptions already provide, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb, 'Search', and clearly identifies the resource: 'the accessibility snapshot of the current page' for 'text or a regular expression'. This distinguishes it from siblings like browser_snapshot (which captures the whole snapshot) and browser_click (which performs an action).

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when you only need to locate an element and its ref'. It also implies the alternative of 'capturing the whole snapshot' and notes that this method is 'cheaper'. This provides clear context and suggests a preferred use case.

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