browser_wait_for_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that the tool blocks until text is visible or the timeout expires, but it does not disclose what happens on timeout, whether it polls, or what 'visible' means beyond the schema's substring-match note.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: it names the action, the target condition, and the termination condition. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter wait tool with full schema descriptions and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior. The main gap is the unspecified post-timeout behavior, but the phrase 'or the timeout runs out' at least signals that the operation terminates.

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 input schema already describes both parameters fully: the text is a substring match and the timeout has a default, maximum, and minimum. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 for 100% schema coverage 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?

The description states a specific verb ('wait'), a specific resource ('a piece of text becomes visible on the page'), and a clear ending condition ('or the timeout runs out'). It distinguishes this from the sibling browser_wait_for_timeout, which waits for a fixed duration rather than for a condition to be satisfied.

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 implies the use case—blocking until text appears on the page—but does not explicitly say when to prefer it over browser_wait_for_timeout or how it relates to navigation and snapshot tools. There is no exclusionary guidance or named alternative.

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