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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description is consistent with them while adding real value: 'opens nothing by itself' tells the agent this call performs no browser action side effects, and the browser-tool handoff describes what must happen next. The API availability note (REST API on all plans, daily call cap, no official MCP server) is useful context for choosing a path, though the dated '(checked 22 Oct 2026)' stamp is noise.

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 operative content (returns instructions, opens nothing, use browser tools next) is front-loaded, which is good. But 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the trailing API factoid with a date stamp is peripheral to invoking this tool, making the definition longer than its job requires.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description's job is mainly to explain what comes back and what to do next, and it does both ('screens, buttons, fields'; then cotlet_browser_*). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, though a one-line note on the scope of the report (which campaign metrics) would have closed the loop.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent input requirements.

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 states a specific resource (campaign report) and, crucially, clarifies that the deliverable is step-by-step in-app instructions rather than report data, resolving the ambiguity in the name 'Get campaign report'. It also names the follow-up mechanism (cotlet_browser_* tools), so an agent can tell what it gets back. It stops short of 5 because the name and the actual return value pull in different directions and require the description to reconcile them.

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 clear sequencing: call this first for the how-to, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the Agile CRM Cloud Browser. That is genuine routing guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., when to skip this and act directly, or when the REST API is preferable despite the stated daily cap).

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