search_page_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions returning 'full detail' and gives filter examples, but does not explain edge cases like substring matching behavior, default limit enforcement, or what happens when no elements match. The schema covers defaults, but the description adds moderate context.

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 concise: one opening sentence plus six short example lines. Every line adds practical value, and the formatting makes filter options easy to scan. No redundant content.

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 search/filter tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key usage patterns and return intent. It lacks explicit mention of pagination/limit behavior or relationship to page source lifecycle, but the examples and clear scope are sufficient for typical use.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable usage semantics by showing concrete example values for multiple parameters (`type="button"`, `text="subscribe"`, `has_bind=true`, etc.). This goes beyond the schema's raw field descriptions and helps the agent form valid queries.

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 clearly states 'Search/filter elements within a page source' with a specific verb and resource, and lists concrete example filters. It distinguishes from sibling `search_global_source_elements` by explicitly scoping to 'page source', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides useful examples of filters, which implies usage patterns, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `list_elements` or `search_global_source_elements`. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are given.

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