Wait for Network Response

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about sensitivity (exposure of private URLs, headers, timing), which alerts to potential data exposure beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences with clear sections: purpose, preconditions, next step, sensitivity. No redundancy. Could be slightly more concise by merging sentences, but overall well-structured and front-loaded.

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 5 params with no schema descriptions, the description should cover parameter specifics but doesn't. It covers usage context, preconditions, and sensitivity. With an output schema present, the return structure is likely explained elsewhere. Adequate but missing parameter details needed for correct invocation.

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 has 5 params with 0% description coverage. The description only generically mentions 'narrow URL, method, or status filters' without detailing any parameter's meaning or usage. It fails to clarify urlRegex vs urlContains, timeoutMs, or method options. The description does not compensate for the missing 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 clearly states the tool waits for a network response matching criteria. It distinguishes from sibling 'browser_wait_for_response_body' by mentioning 'use the body variant only when content matters', indicating this one focuses on metadata. However, it lacks a succinct verb+resource phrasing like 'wait for network response matching filters'.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given (start wait before triggering action, provide narrow filters) and a next step (correlate response). It hints at sibling alternative ('use the body variant'). Could be more explicit about when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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