wait_for

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It says nothing about polling behavior, what happens when the wait times out, whether it errors or returns a status, or that the default timeout applies when 0 is passed (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing behavioral detail rather than a mark of completeness.

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 blocking/waiting tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description omits the critical question of what the tool returns or does on timeout, and whether the page must be selected first. These are real gaps for an agent deciding how to handle the result.

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 the schema already documents pageId, the text list with any-match semantics, and the timeout default behavior. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('specified text ... on the selected page'), which distinguishes it from sibling reads like take_snapshot or get_console_message. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative tool or clarify how it relates to select_page.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over polling with evaluate_script, take_snapshot, or re-reading state. No preconditions (e.g., a page must already be selected) and no when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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