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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds genuine value by explaining why that is the case ('opens nothing by itself') and by disclosing the exact shape of the response (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). It also explains the API situation that forces the browser-tool handoff. It stops short of saying whether the guidance is account-state-specific or requires an active 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the 'returns guidance, does not act' constraint before the execution handoff. The closing note on AestheticsPro's Enterprise-only API is longer than strictly necessary (pricing and a check date) but justifies why the browser-tool path is the only option.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and read-only annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs: what it returns, that it performs no action, and which tool family carries out the action. The remaining gap is how the guidance relates to the account's actual scheduled outreach state and to sibling tools that configure outreach.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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+resource ('Adjust scheduled outreach in ... AestheticsPro') and immediately redefines the tool as a guidance provider: 'Returns how to do it ... and opens nothing by itself.' This resolves the ambiguity between the mutating-sounding name and siblings like aestheticspro_customize_outreach_campaign, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call this to learn the screens/buttons/fields, then perform the action with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. Also scopes it to 'the user's own AestheticsPro account.' It does not state when to prefer customize_outreach_campaign or draft_outreach_campaign_with_ai instead, so selection among sibling tools is left to inference.

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