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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating 'opens nothing by itself' — clarifying the tool plans but never mutates — and by disclosing that the return value is a procedural guide listing screens, buttons and fields.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, but the phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler, and the trailing sentence about Buildertrend's Marketplace integrations is tangential context that dilutes the operative instruction.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only broadly characterizes the return value as step-by-step guidance without indicating its shape or scope (e.g. whether it covers filtering or selecting specific jobs). For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no user or account arguments are needed.

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 name and title promise 'list selections', but the description reveals the tool actually returns step-by-step instructions for performing the task in Buildertrend rather than the selection data itself. That disclosure prevents a wrong call, yet the verb/resource framing still conflicts with the real behavior, leaving the purpose only partially clear to an agent.

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: read the returned steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Buildertrend Cloud Browser. It also explains that no official API path exists, which justifies the browser route. It does not distinguish itself from cotlet_app_guide, which is the closest sibling.

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