wait_for_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns once the URL matches or the timeout expires, which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens on timeout (e.g., throws an error, returns false) or other details like case sensitivity, leaving some ambiguity for a simple wait operation.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides usage context, and the arguments are listed clearly. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or 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?

The tool has a simple scope (2 parameters, 1 required) and an output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description covers usage scenario, parameters, and termination behavior. A minor gap is that timeout failure behavior is not specified, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for this tool's simplicity.

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 provides only titles with no descriptions, giving 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: url_contains as the substring the URL must contain with examples, and timeout_ms as the maximum wait time in milliseconds with the default value. This adds significant meaning 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 states the tool's purpose: to wait for the page URL to contain a given substring. It specifies the resource (page URL), the condition (contains substring), and the action (wait). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wait_for_element, which waits for a DOM element, and navigate, which changes the URL.

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 explicitly advises use after clicking an SPA navigation link where the URL changes client-side without a full page reload. This provides clear context for when to use it. It implicitly excludes full-page reload scenarios but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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