browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the annotation title 'Wait for' — no timeout ceiling, no statement of what happens on failure, no disclosure whether waiting blocks other session actions.

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 compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations beyond the necessary purpose statement.

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 zero-required-parameter wait primitive with no output schema, the description is serviceable but leaves the timeout/failure behavior and the parameter combination rules unstated — the two things an agent most needs to invoke it correctly.

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 four parameters are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description's enumeration of appear/disappear/time loosely maps to text/textGone/time, but it adds no precedence or exclusivity rule that the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb ('wait for') plus the three distinguishable conditions it can wait on (text appearance, disappearance, elapsed time). No sibling in the list does waiting, so the tool is unambiguous within the set, though it never explicitly positions itself against its neighbors.

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 three wait modes imply when to use the tool, but nothing states the constraints an agent actually needs: whether text/textGone/time are mutually exclusive, whether at least one is required (required list is empty), or what to do when the condition is already satisfied.

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