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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them by stating the tool performs no action. It adds real context beyond annotations: the return format (screens, buttons, fields) and the required downstream tooling. The API/add-on note also tells the agent an official programmatic alternative exists but needs administrator provisioning.

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?

Front-loaded: what it does and what it returns come first, workflow second, API caveat last. The API/AppConnections sentence is longer than strictly necessary and carries a parenthetical check date, but it does help an agent decide whether to route to the API instead.

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?

Safety profile is covered by annotations, return content is described, and no output schema or params require explanation. The one gap is that with zero parameters the tool cannot target a specific job or milestone, yet the description never says how the relevant job is identified — the agent must infer this is generic guidance.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds no parameter detail but none is needed.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Update job milestone in the user's own AccuLynx account') and immediately clarifies the actual output: step-by-step instructions rather than an executed update. That distinction separates it cleanly from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that actually perform actions.

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?

Explicitly sequences the workflow: call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* in the user's AccuLynx Cloud Browser. It also states the tool 'opens nothing by itself,' which rules out misuse. It does not name the specific browser sibling (e.g., cotlet_browser_click/fill_form) or say when to skip this tool entirely.

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