browser_wait_for_navigation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds the genuinely important behavior an agent cannot infer: only the *next* navigation event is observed, prior navigations are invisible and cause a full timeout wait, and URL-preserving updates produce no event at all. This is exactly the kind of blocking/gotcha disclosure that prevents a mis-call.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the two caveats; nothing is padded. Minor redundancy in restating the timeout default that the schema already specifies.

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 a trivial return value and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what triggers completion, what does not, and the timeout ceiling. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter wait tool.

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 schema already documents session_id and timeout_ms including default and max. The description repeats the 30000ms default but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Wait for the page to navigate to a new URL') that cleanly separates it from browser_wait and browser_wait_for_selector, which wait on conditions rather than navigation events. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a 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 description gives clear context for when this tool works ('waits for the next navigation event') and two explicit failure conditions: an already-completed navigation is missed and the call blocks to timeout, and AJAX/SPA updates fire no navigation event. It stops short of naming the alternative to use in those cases (e.g. browser_wait_for_selector), so it is clear context without explicit redirection.

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