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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description is consistent with that ('opens nothing by itself'). It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the return value is procedural guidance, and there is no public API — only a Zapier app with lead/payment triggers — so browser automation is the only path. The one gap is that it does not say how the steps are structured or how long they may be.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately corrected by the 'returns steps, opens nothing' clause, then the handoff. The Zapier/API note is slightly tangential but earns its place by explaining why browser automation is required. No filler.

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, no output schema, and a read-only annotation profile, the description covers what an agent needs: what comes back, what it must do next, and why the browser route exists. Only the shape/format of the returned steps is left unspecified, which is minor for a zero-argument guide tool.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level confusion is possible.

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 verb/resource ('Create project in the user's own Bloom account') and then immediately qualifies it: the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the creation. That correction is essential given the name implies a mutation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling guides like bloom_create_lead, but the pattern is clear enough to distinguish it from the browser tools it hands off to.

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 a concrete workflow: call this first to get screens/buttons/fields, then act with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Bloom Cloud Browser. 'Opens nothing by itself' sets a clear boundary on what the agent should and should not expect. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over bloom_create_lead or bloom_record_payment, but the naming makes the domain obvious.

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