browser_wait_for_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: waits for URL change, matches substring, returns current URL on timeout (non-throwing), and optionally chains a readiness gate. It could be more explicit about whether it succeeds immediately if the URL already matches, but this is a minor gap given the usage context.

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 sentences, no redundant wording. Front-loaded with the core action, then usage context, timeout behavior, and optional chaining. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 description covers the essential aspects for correct usage: what it does, when to use it, timeout behavior, and optional chaining. No output schema exists, so it doesn't need to explain return values, but it does mention the timeout return. It doesn't explicitly explain what happens on success (likely no return value), but that is a minor omission for a wait operation.

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% for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning to wait_for (readiness gate, avoiding follow-up), but doesn't add syntax or details beyond what the schema already provides for pattern, exact, timeout, and wait_for.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('page URL'), and clearly states the action: 'wait for the page URL to change and match a substring pattern.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browser_wait_for_network by focusing on URL changes rather than network idle.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after actions that trigger redirects (JS redirects, auth redirects, SPA route changes).' This provides clear context and indicates it is a follow-up wait operation. It also suggests an alternative pattern ('so you don't have to follow up with setTimeout/wait') for chaining with wait_for, showing awareness of alternatives.

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