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

'opens nothing by itself' explicitly confirms the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations and reassures the agent there are no side effects, and it discloses the return content (screens, buttons, fields) despite there being no output schema. It does not cover prerequisites, such as whether a browser session must already be open before the guide can be executed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical caveat that nothing is executed. No redundant restatement of 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 zero-parameter, non-destructive tool the core contract is covered. But with no input to identify which form to duplicate and no output schema, the agent is given no basis for grounding the returned steps to a specific form, and the description does not explain how that targeting happens.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema is consistent with a tool that only emits generic instructions, though it also means no form identifier can be supplied and the description does not explain that limitation.

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 and resource (duplicate a form) and clarifies the actual output: a step-by-step guide rather than a mutation. The name/title alone would mislead an agent into expecting the duplication to be performed, but the body corrects that. It does not differentiate itself from the other 123formbuilder_* tools, which appear to hit the real API.

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 does say the follow-up action belongs to the cotlet_browser_* tools, which is a useful hand-off instruction. However, it never says when to choose this instruction-returning tool over the API-backed siblings (e.g. 123formbuilder_list_forms), and the trailing note about 123FormBuilder's REST API v2 obfuscates rather than clarifies that choice.

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