browser_wait_for

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read-only operation. The description adds the specific wait conditions but does not disclose edge cases like behavior when no parameters are provided or when multiple conditions are combined. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and covers all three use cases. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main functionality, though it leaves ambiguity about how parameter combinations (e.g., text + time) should be handled and what the return value is, so it is not a perfect 5.

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%: each parameter already has a clear description ('text to wait for', 'time in seconds', 'text to disappear'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: waits for text to appear, disappear, or a specified time to pass. It uses a specific verb ('wait') and identifies the resources (text, time), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools, so it loses one point.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to wait for a condition such as text appearing/disappearing or a time delay. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools (e.g., browser_find for checking text presence), so it is not fully explicit.

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