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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions, and it notes ClockShark has no public API — both material to how an agent should plan the call.

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 message is front-loaded and clear, but the phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is promotional filler that does not help tool selection. The API note is useful but appended awkwardly at the end.

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-parameter, non-destructive guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (screens, buttons, fields) and what it does not do (open anything). Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 parameter meaning to convey; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs 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 description names a specific verb and resource ('Export payroll hours') and immediately clarifies the actual deliverable: step-by-step instructions rather than a performed export. It also distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by stating the browser tools are what actually execute the steps.

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 clear context for use (exporting payroll hours in the user's own ClockShark account) and explicitly routes the agent onward to cotlet_browser_* tools for execution. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as clockshark_list_time_entries, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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