browser_wait

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the wait is unconditional/fixed rather than event-driven, which is useful, but says nothing about blocking behavior, the 30s ceiling, or what happens if the session is closed. Adequate but thin against an already-covered annotation set.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core semantics front-loaded and the disambiguation second. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It omits only minor operational detail such as the blocking nature of the call and the maximum-duration caveat, which is already in the schema.

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%: both ms and session_id are documented in the schema, including the 30000 maximum. The description adds no formatting, units, or default information beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') and the scope ('fixed duration'), and immediately contrasts with the sibling browser_wait_for_selector. An agent can distinguish this tool from the selector- and navigation-based wait tools without opening any schema.

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 the selecting condition by describing what the alternative does ('waits only until an element appears'), which implies this tool is for unconditional fixed delays. It is clear context, but it never states explicitly when to prefer a fixed sleep or warns about its cost, so no full 5.

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