Wait Until

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the behavioral scope of what can be waited on, which is context beyond annotations, but doesn't mention timeout or polling behavior (though schema provides timeout/interval).

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that lists capabilities in a compact, scannable way. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (14 condition types, nested selector structures), the description covers only a subset of conditions, omitting attribute/property waits. While an output schema exists, the functional coverage is incomplete, so the description does not fully convey the tool's capabilities.

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 each of the 7 parameters has a description in the schema. The tool description provides a high-level overview of condition categories but adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, yielding a baseline 3.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource ('Wait for observable page state') and enumerates many condition categories (element states, text, URL). However, it omits attribute and property conditions that exist in the schema (attribute_equals, property_equals, etc.), making the description still mostly clear but not fully comprehensive.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized wait_for_element, wait_for_url, or wait_time sibling tools. The broad scope implies it's the general waiting utility, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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