Find text on the page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds substantial behavioral context: whole-page search, ranked match output, field semantics like 'honest label' and href pass-through, truncation, the contextChars budget, and contextMatchesOmitted. No behavior is hidden or contradictory.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, output shape, optional budget behavior, and usage guidance. It front-loads the core search behavior before detailing the optional contextChars mechanics, with no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return values: structuredContent fields, ranked matches, truncation, context contents, observationId, and the omission counter. It also covers when to use the tool and how it relates to browser_text, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The description significantly expands on contextChars, explaining that it allocates a total text budget, provides per-match context fields, and includes a continuation mechanism when truncated. The text parameter is self-explanatory and sessionId is already documented in the schema, so the 67% schema coverage is sufficiently compensated.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('text across the WHOLE page'), then specifies ranked matches with structured fields. It distinguishes itself from page-reading siblings by emphasizing the whole-page scope and explicitly warning against using it for a full outline.

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as 'the right tool to locate something specific on long pages' and adds the when-not guidance 'do not ask for the full outline.' It also references browser_text as the related sibling for the underlying frozen text, giving the agent enough context to choose correctly.

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