search_page_elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come back 'with full detail (id, type, style, text, classes, etc.)', but omits pagination behavior, result caps beyond the schema default, and whether the search is substring vs exact (only implied).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the examples are formatted as a compact bulleted list. The bullet list is somewhat long relative to what it adds over the schema, but nothing is redundant filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does supply a return-format summary. The remaining gap is that limit/pagination semantics ('Max results (default 50)') are left to the schema and no guidance is given on iterating past the cap.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented with examples. The description's examples (type="button", custom_class="hero", has_bind=true) largely restate what the schema already provides, adding only marginal value, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Search/filter elements within a page source', which is a clear read operation on a well-defined object. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_elements, get_element, or search_global_source_elements, so the agent must infer the boundary from context.

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 examples implicitly show how to exercise each filter, which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives (e.g. list_elements vs this search). The agent must infer that this tool is the search-centric counterpart to get_element.

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