Wait For Load

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: it polls, waits for document readiness, and is meant to follow navigation. It does not mention timeout failure behavior, but that is already covered thoroughly in the timeout_ms parameter description.

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, both essential: the first defines behavior and the second defines when to use it. There is no filler, and the key fact 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 wait/poll tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be stronger by contrasting with wait_for_selector, and there is no output schema, but the timeout_ms description already communicates what a call hands back (readyState and url).

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 baseline is 3. All three parameters already have clear descriptions, defaults, and constraints in the schema. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Poll until a tab has finished loading and the document is ready.' This clearly distinguishes it from element-based waiting (wait_for_selector) and navigation-triggering actions (reload_tab, go_back). It is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 second sentence gives explicit placement guidance: 'Use after an action that triggers navigation.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like wait_for_selector, so it stops short of a full 5.

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