Wait for the page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 30 s cap on ms and the cryptic "Asks once per profile" note, but it never says what happens on timeout (error vs. falsy result) or how timeoutMs interacts with ms — the most important behavioral question for a wait tool.

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, tightly packed sentence with zero filler; the three wait modes are front-loaded and each is paired with its parameter. The parenthetical style is dense but readable, and nothing is repeated from the title.

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 six-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition leaves too much open: the return value on success versus timeout is unspecified, timeoutMs is never mentioned, and two overlapping time controls are left for the agent to reconcile. "Asks once per profile" gestures at per-profile scoping but is too vague to act on.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning; it does explain four of six (selector, state, text, ms) and adds the 30 s ceiling that the schema omits (schema says maximum 30000 but not the intent). It says nothing about profileId or timeoutMs, leaving the relationship between ms and the separately bounded timeoutMs (max 45000) unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ("Waits") and enumerates the three concrete conditions it can wait on: element visible/hidden via selector+state, text appearance, or a fixed time. That is far more specific than the title, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as page_snapshot or page_extract_text, which an agent might reasonably pick instead.

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?

It implicitly guides mode selection by pairing each wait condition with the parameter that triggers it (selector+state, text, ms), which is useful. However, it gives no when-not guidance, no statement of what to do if the element may never appear, and no hint about preferring polling with page_snapshot instead.

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