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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious context: this tool performs no action and opens no browser, and it returns a step-by-step procedure (screens, buttons, fields) that must be executed by separate browser tools. That is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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 operational content is front-loaded and efficient, but the first sentence's action verb fights the actual read-only behavior, and the closing sentence about Chatwoot's REST API, Application API, CLI and lack of an official MCP server is background trivia that does not help an agent invoke the tool.

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-argument guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what comes back (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and what must happen next (browser tools). It does not say how granular the returned steps are or what happens if the user has multiple Chatwoot accounts, which are minor omissions at this complexity level.

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 schema meaning to add or compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly frames it as a parameterless guide rather than implying inputs such as conversation ID or label names.

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 title and opening sentence ('Add labels in the user's own Chatwoot account') describe a mutation, but the actual behavior is only revealed in sentence two: it 'Returns how to do it in Chatwoot step by step... and opens nothing by itself.' An agent must read past a misleading lead verb to learn this is an instruction-generator, not an executor, though the distinction from the cotlet_browser_* siblings is eventually made clear.

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 does state the workflow: call this to get steps, then perform them 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Chatwoot Cloud Browser.' That is real when-to-use guidance. However, it gives no guidance relative to other siblings such as cotlet_app_guide or the other chatwoot_* tools, and no indication of when this tool is unnecessary.

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