browser_wait_for_text

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: polling every 500ms, returning a fresh ARIA snapshot, and returning an error with current page text length on timeout. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and failure modes.

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 compact and front-loaded, delivering purpose, usage, behavior, and error handling in four sentences with no redundant content. Every sentence adds useful 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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value (ARIA snapshot), polling behavior, timeout error handling, and parameter tuning guidance. It is fully self-contained and leaves no critical gaps.

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?

While the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds valuable semantics: text is whitespace-normalized, tabId defaults to the agent's active tab, and timeout suggests 5-10s for fast SPAs. These details go beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Wait for a specific text to appear anywhere in the page DOM (case-insensitive substring match)." It clearly distinguishes from the sibling browser_wait by stating it "Replaces blind browser_wait(time) calls."

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?

Provides explicit usage context: "Use after clicking a submit button, or to wait for a Stripe dashboard to finish loading." It also names the alternative tool (browser_wait) and explains when to prefer this tool over that one.

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