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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: it returns instructions, opens nothing, and points to the browser tool family that performs the actual clicks. The trailing note about BrightLocal's REST API and official MCP server is informational but gives no actionable directive.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns, then the handoff to browser tools. The third sentence about the official API and MCP server is somewhat tangential and does not clearly change agent behavior, costing a point.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the full burden of explaining what gets returned and how the report is selected. It says the return is step-by-step screens/buttons/fields, which helps, but never explains how the tool knows which report to re-run without any arguments.

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 and there is no per-parameter semantics to add. Nothing in the description misrepresents the input surface, though it also never explains how the target report is identified with no parameters at all.

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 ('Re-run report') and crucially clarifies the tool's real output: step-by-step instructions rather than the re-run itself. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* tools it feeds into, but never mentions the similarly named sibling 'rerun_report', leaving ambiguity about which one actually executes the action.

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 an explicit workflow: this tool returns the how-to, then the cotlet_browser_* tools perform it, and it states 'opens nothing by itself.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it gives no exclusion rules versus 'rerun_report' or versus the app-guide siblings like cotlet_app_guide.

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