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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, no open-world), and the description adds useful context beyond them: the tool returns instructions rather than performing actions, and it must be paired with the browser tools. It doesn't explain what a guide response looks like or whether a Cloud Browser session must already exist, but it discloses the core behavioral surprise well.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but there is filler ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and the API parenthetical ('checked 9 Nov 2026') is oddly specific and not actionable. The sentences are coherent but longer than needed for a tool with no parameters.

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 tool whose annotations cover safety, the description supplies the crucial gotcha (returns instructions, performs no action) and the follow-up workflow. It stops short of describing the return format or the Cloud Browser session prerequisites, which would make it fully self-contained.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema is self-documenting. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate here.

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 names a specific resource and scope ('List open proposals in the user's own Arborgold account') and then clarifies the actual output: a step-by-step guide ('screens, buttons, fields') rather than the data itself. This clarification is valuable but creates a mild tension with the 'list' verb and the sibling names, which read as data-returning tools.

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 guidance: 'opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Arborgold Cloud Browser.' That tells the agent how to use this tool in a workflow. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from nearby alternatives such as cotlet_app_guide, so the agent has to infer the boundary.

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