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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious and essential fact that the tool performs no action at all: 'opens nothing by itself.' It also discloses the shape of the return value (screens, buttons, fields, step by step), which matters because there is no output schema. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations alone could not convey.

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 second sentence is dense but front-loads the important constraint. However, the closing sentence about 123FormBuilder's REST API v2 with token login and a 'checked 23 Oct 2026' date is noise that offers no actionable guidance and distracts from the workflow instruction. The first sentence overpromises slightly relative to the second.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns and what it does not do, which is enough to call it correctly. It does not mention prerequisites such as whether the user must already be signed in to the 123FormBuilder Cloud Browser before the follow-up browser tools will work.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to explain; baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or misdescribes the empty schema.

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 definition names a specific verb and resource (resend submission email) and, crucially, states that the tool's actual output is a step-by-step guide rather than the action itself. The opening phrase 'Resend submission email' reads like an action tool, but the second sentence corrects that with 'Returns how to do it ... and opens nothing by itself.' An agent can tell what this does, though the title and name initially suggest a different behavior.

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 explicitly routes the agent forward: after getting the steps, perform them 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's 123FormBuilder Cloud Browser.' That is clear context for the workflow. It does not state exclusions – e.g., when to prefer a direct API path or a different 123FormBuilder sibling – and the trailing note about the REST API v2 is mentioned without saying when that alternative should be chosen.

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