browser_wait_for_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose an important trait: 'Monitors real network traffic via Chrome DevTools Protocol.' However, it does not explain behavior on timeout, whether it waits for the first matching request or all requests, or what happens if no request matches. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the use case and mechanism. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff 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?

For a simple wait tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what, when, and how. Missing details like timeout behavior and return value are minor given the simplicity, but the lack of annotations means slightly more context would be ideal.

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 both parameters (timeout and url_pattern) with useful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Wait for a network request to complete.' It clearly distinguishes itself from generic browser_wait by specifying network-level waiting and adds the CDP mechanism. An agent can immediately understand what this tool accomplishes.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Useful after clicking buttons that trigger API calls - ensures data is loaded before reading the page.' This tells the agent when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like browser_wait or say when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous enough.

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