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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is consistent and useful. The trailing 'Anaplan's official API: Yes' is ambiguous and adds little clarity about behavior.

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 core intent is front-loaded, but the sentence is clunky ('Returns how to do it in Anaplan step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself') and the fragment 'Anaplan's official API: Yes' is unclear and does not earn its place.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the follow-up tool family to use. It is nearly complete, with only the ambiguous API note detracting.

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; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter meaning is missing.

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 verb and resource ('List actions in the user's own Anaplan account') and clarifies that the return value is step-by-step UI instructions rather than action data. This distinguishes it from data-returning siblings like anaplan_run_process, though the name 'list actions' still slightly suggests a data listing.

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 to get instructions, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Anaplan Cloud Browser. It does not state when NOT to use it or name a specific alternative for direct API execution, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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