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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool blocks until a condition is met and describes supported condition types, but it does not state behavior on timeout, whether it returns a value or throws, or details about polling semantics.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose and scope, the second gives usage guidance, and the third explicitly names the alternative for mobile. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 wait tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what it waits for, which browser context it applies to, how it relates to web_evaluate, and when to select webpage_wait_for instead. The main gap is the absence of timeout/error outcome details, but the schema's timeoutMs parameter partially offsets that.

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%, and each parameter has a clear schema-level description. The tool description adds contextual meaning by naming the condition categories (element, text, delay) but does not provide meaningful additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a wait-for-condition operation on the DESKTOP grid browser using pageId, and enumerates the exact conditions it handles: element appear/disappear, text appearance, or fixed delay. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from webpage_wait_for, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including a strong preference over polling with web_evaluate. It also provides a clear exclusion: for phone/tablet browsers, use webpage_wait_for (by udid).

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