Wait for

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description mentions waiting for time to pass but does not disclose polling behavior, timeout semantics, error handling (e.g., what happens if text never appears), or whether the operation blocks. These are critical behavioral gaps beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a tool with four parameters and multiple wait conditions, the description should be structured to list options, defaults, or constraints. The current brevity sacrifices necessary detail.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain return values, side effects (even though it's read-only, agents need to know what happens), or confirmation of wait success versus timeout. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full burden for parameters. It mentions 'text to appear or disappear or a specified time to pass', which hints at text, textGone, and time parameters, but gives no details on syntax, precedence, mutual exclusivity, or the _meta parameter. The description is too vague to help an agent correctly set parameters.

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 waits for text to appear, disappear, or a time to pass. The verb 'Wait for' and the three conditions are specific, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like browser_find or browser_snapshot, which also interact with page content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention of using browser_find to check for text before waiting, or how this tool relates to browser_snapshot for reading page state. The description lacks any when-to or when-not-to instructions.

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