Find elements

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: what the return payload contains (refs with label, state and value) and the search reach into forms, open/closed shadow roots, and off-screen elements. It does not explain hidden-element handling despite an includeHidden parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: the match strategies first, then the return contract and downstream use, then the non-obvious reach capability. No filler and nothing buried.

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, so the description correctly takes on the return contract (refs, label, state, value) and names the consuming tools. Given 7 parameters and no required fields, a few behaviors (result ordering/limit semantics, hidden elements) are still unaddressed, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing at a blocking level.

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?

With 43% schema coverage across 7 parameters, the description must compensate and partially does: it supplies the entire allowed role vocabulary (which the schema lacks, 0 enums) and clarifies text matching. But exact, limit, tabId, includeHidden and the match/multi-match behavior remain undocumented in both places.

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 ("Find elements") and immediately enumerates the three matching strategies (visible text, role, CSS selector). The role list and the mention of returned refs distinguish it clearly from siblings like browser_read, browser_look and browser_inspect.

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?

Tells the agent the follow-up path explicitly: the refs returned "you can pass to browser_act, browser_inspect or browser_screenshot," which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g. versus browser_read or browser_look for pure content retrieval), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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