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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself,' which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs. It also discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the constraint that 17hats publishes no public API, explaining why a browser route is required. It stops short of stating prerequisites such as an already-open authenticated Cloud Browser session.

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?

Three tight sentences covering purpose, return value, and next step, with the corrective 'opens nothing by itself' placed early enough to prevent misuse. The 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' phrase and the appended API note are minor filler that do not advance tool selection.

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, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what it returns and what the agent must do next, which is the essential loop. The main gap is not stating that it merely plans and requires a live authenticated Cloud Browser session, though 'user's 17hats Cloud Browser' gestures at it.

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 there is no argument semantics to explain and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds nothing needed on this dimension and nothing misleading.

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 the resource (a 17hats project) and immediately clarifies the surprising behavior: it 'returns how to do it in 17hats step by step... and opens nothing by itself.' That resolves the mismatch with the 'create' verb in the name. It is slightly muddied by leading with 'Create project... from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent,' which sounds like it performs the creation, but the next clause corrects it.

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 states the follow-up step explicitly: after getting the steps, 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's 17hats Cloud Browser.' That is a clear when-and-how. It does not mention when *not* to use it or how it relates to the sibling 17hats_* action tools (add_contact, send_invoice, etc.), leaving that boundary to inference.

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