Query Accessibility Tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (search by criteria, return matching nodes with properties) and includes useful behavioral details like case-insensitive matching and partial name matching. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like whether all parameters are optional, search scope limitations, performance characteristics, or what specific properties are returned.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides a concrete example that reinforces understanding. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the essential 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the search purpose well but doesn't describe the return format (what 'properties' includes), doesn't mention that all parameters are optional (though schema shows this), and doesn't provide context about search scope or limitations. For a search tool with no output schema, more detail about return values would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the same two parameters (role and accessibleName) in the example but doesn't explain the backendNodeId parameter or provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search', 'Returns') and resources ('accessibility tree', 'matching nodes with their properties'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_accessibility_tree' (which presumably retrieves the entire tree) by emphasizing search/filtering capabilities. The example further clarifies the specific use case.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to search/filter the accessibility tree by ARIA role and/or accessible name. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context implies it's for filtered searches rather than retrieving the full tree (which 'get_accessibility_tree' likely does). No misleading guidance is present.

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