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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context on top: it "opens nothing by itself" and returns procedural guidance instead of performing the action. The note about Avantio having official APIs but no official MCP server explains why browser automation is required, though it does not cover auth/permissions for the user's account.

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 key constraint (returns a how-to, opens nothing) is front-loaded, but the closing sentence about Avantio's PMS/Web/Accounting APIs and the dated "checked 31 Oct 2026" aside is tangential to selecting or invoking this tool. Repetition of "in Avantio" and the multi-clause second sentence add length without adding decision value.

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, no-output-schema tool whose safety profile is already covered by annotations, the description supplies what matters: what is returned (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and that nothing is executed. Only the lack of any guidance on how to hand off results to the browser tools is a minor gap.

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 schema already closes the object with additionalProperties false. Baseline 4 applies, with no added param meaning needed or 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 verb and resource are named ("List tasks in the user's own Avantio account"), but the second sentence reframes the tool as returning a step-by-step how-to ("screens, buttons, fields") rather than task data, creating tension with the name and title. An agent can eventually work out that this is a guidance tool, but the first read is misleading.

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?

Explicitly routes follow-up work to the "cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Avantio Cloud Browser," which tells the agent what to do next. It stops short of stating when not to call it or how it differs from sibling Avantio data tools like avantio_list_bookings, which share the same naming pattern.

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