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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' — i.e., it produces instructions rather than performing the report. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe response format or any prerequisites for the Cloud 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?

The core content is front-loaded and reasonably tight, but the sentence chains clauses awkwardly ('...and opens nothing by itself; then do it with...'), and the fragment 'AppFolio's official API: Partly.' adds noise without actionable meaning.

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 and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and the required follow-up with browser tools. It is still thin on prerequisites — whether a Cloud Browser session must already be open, or what authentication is needed to read the user's AppFolio account.

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 of 4 applies since no parameter meaning is required.

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 makes clear that this is a guidance tool that 'Returns how to do it in AppFolio step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' for a report in the user's own AppFolio account, which resolves the ambiguity of the name/title 'Run report'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling cotlet_app_guide, keeping it short of a 5.

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 follow-on action — 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AppFolio Cloud Browser' — so the agent knows the next step. However, it offers no when-not guidance or explicit alternative (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide), and the trailing 'AppFolio's official API: Partly.' is opaque rather than instructive.

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