browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the wait is evaluated against the accessibility snapshot (not the raw DOM) and that the snapshot is returned, but it omits timeout-failure behavior (error vs. silent return) and poll semantics.

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 that front-loads the trigger condition and ends with the return value. No filler 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value information ('then return the snapshot'). What remains thin is the timeout path — the agent does not learn what happens when the timeout elapses or how to combine text and textGone.

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 text, textGone and timeout are already fully documented with defaults and bounds; the baseline of 3 applies. The description only restates the appear/disappear duality and adds no syntax, precedence, or interaction detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: waiting on text presence/absence in the page's accessibility snapshot, and notes it returns the snapshot. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling browser_wait (a fixed-duration wait), so an agent cannot fully disambiguate the two from the description alone.

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?

Usage is implied — use it when you need to block until specific text appears or disappears — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against the sibling browser_wait that most obviously overlaps with this tool.

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