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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description correctly reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself' and clarifies the return is a procedural guide rather than an executed change. The mention of the official API's existence adds modest context but nothing about output format length or failure behavior when the UI differs.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load the key clarification (a guide, not an action) before the handoff. The trailing fragment 'Ashby's official API: Yes.' is awkward and adds little, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 matters: what it returns (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and that it performs no action itself. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only return-format detail missing.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not mislead about inputs.

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 ('Add note in the user's own Ashby account') and immediately reframes what the tool actually does: 'Returns how to do it in Ashby step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' This distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools it hands off to, though it does not name cotlet_app_guide as the closest sibling alternative.

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 an explicit workflow: call this first to get the steps, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Ashby Cloud Browser. It does not state when to skip this guide (e.g. if the agent already knows the flow) or how it differs from cotlet_app_guide, so a small gap remains.

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