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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description still adds value by confirming it performs no action itself and only returns screens/buttons/fields, which resolves the tension with the 'publish' name. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned instructions, so the addition is contextual rather than deep.

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 crucial caveat that it opens nothing by itself is front-loaded, so an agent cannot misread it as a write action. The final sentence about Bayut having no public API is relevant justification but slightly tangential, and the parenthetical '(checked 12 Oct 2026)' adds little for tool selection.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tools to use next. What the returned step list actually looks like is left implicit, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals that everything (which listing, which account) is determined outside this call, in the subsequent browser tools.

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 resource (a Bayut listing) and immediately corrects the expectation set by its own name: it returns step-by-step instructions and 'opens nothing by itself.' That makes the real behavior distinguishable from an actual publish action. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like bayut_edit_listing or bayut_refresh_listing, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Clear usage context: get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools inside the user's Bayut Cloud Browser. This gives an agent an actionable next step rather than leaving it stranded. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives for editing or refreshing an existing listing.

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