browser_wait_for_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the any-of matching behavior for url_pattern, timeout default, and the return value (status and JSON body). It doesn't mention timeout error behavior, but the disclosed details are sufficient for a read-like wait operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then elaborates usage and parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given three simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, return value, and parameter semantics. It could mention error behavior on timeout, but for a straightforward wait tool, the coverage is solid.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the any-of match semantics for url_pattern arrays and confirming the timeout default, which the schema only lists without these nuances.

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 a network response matching URL pattern and/or method, and returns the response with status and JSON body. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_wait_for_url, which waits for URL navigation.

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?

It explicitly says to use after triggering an action 'instead of guessing with wait times', providing clear use context. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the guidance is actionable and distinguishes from generic waiting.

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