browser_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the scope filter ('visible clickable elements') and the return shape (refs), which is useful. But it is silent on no-match behavior, whether refs go stale, and other operational traits an agent would need when the find fails.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the workflow hint follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only carrier of behavior. It covers purpose and return type adequately for a simple read-only lookup, but leaves the failure/empty-result case and ref lifetime undocumented, which matters for a tool whose output feeds browser_click.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents the case-insensitive substring semantics. The description echoes that meaning by specifying matching against element text rather than attributes, which adds slight value but does not go beyond the structured field.

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 (Find) and a precisely bounded resource (visible clickable elements whose text contains query), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming browser_click as the downstream consumer. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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 sentence 'Returns refs for browser_click' establishes clear context: this is the lookup step before clicking. It does not, however, state exclusions or compare against alternatives like browser_snapshot, which also surfaces page elements, so the agent must infer which locator tool applies.

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