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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description stays consistent with them while adding non-obvious behavior: it returns instructions only and performs no side effects. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It does not say what the returned steps look like in any detail or how they are scoped to the specific time-entry variant.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and earn their place. The third sentence about Accelo's official REST API and hosted MCP server is tangential to invoking this tool and includes an oddly specific date stamp, adding length without helping the agent decide or call correctly.

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 guide tool, the description covers what it returns (screens, buttons, fields), that it has no side effects, and what to do next. Missing only a note on whether the returned steps ever fail or how they differ across Accelo screens.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and points the agent to the browser tools for the actual data entry, so nothing is left ambiguous about invocation.

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 resource and action ('Log time in the user's own Accelo account') and then clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. That clarification is what separates it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that do the real work, though the name 'log_time' still slightly overstates what the call itself does.

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 gives a clear usage path: call this first to get the Accelo steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Accelo Cloud Browser. It states explicitly that this tool 'opens nothing by itself', which is the key when-to-use signal. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of the alternative REST API path as a choice the agent should make.

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