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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the tool 'opens nothing by itself', it returns screen/button/field-level instructions, and the actual action must be carried out by separate browser tools. This prevents the agent from assuming the report is fetched directly — a real failure mode that annotations alone would not prevent.

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 critical constraint ('opens nothing by itself') is front-loaded and clear, but the opening clause 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler and the dated verification note ('checked 28 Oct 2026', a future date) adds little for an invoking agent. Tightening to two sentences would lose nothing.

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 full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is actually needed: what comes back (instructions), what does not happen (no action taken), and which tool family continues the job. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned steps, but that is a minor gap for a zero-argument guidance 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 and the schema is empty with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific resource ('payout report in the user's own ClassPass account') and immediately corrects a likely misreading of the name by clarifying it returns step-by-step instructions rather than the report data itself. It does not explicitly contrast with the reservation-report sibling, but the object of the tool is unambiguous.

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 clear workflow: call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ClassPass Cloud Browser. It also explains why the official ClassPass Inventory API is not the path (approved partners only), which justifies using this approach. No explicit statement of when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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