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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent and non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the tool is a pure instruction generator that opens nothing, and it discloses that Club OS's official API exists but is gated behind an email-to-support credential process. It does not describe output size or formatting of the returned steps.

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 and the follow-up tool chain are front-loaded in the first sentence and a half. The trailing note on the official API is tangential to calling this tool but does earn some place as justification for the browser route; it could be tightened.

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 and no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the response contains (screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears to be 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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly implies the report scope is fixed (Lead Source Report) rather than configurable.

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 verb and resource ("Run Lead Source Report in the user's own Club OS account") and clarifies what actually comes back: step-by-step instructions with screens, buttons and fields rather than report data. It also distinguishes its modality from acting tools by saying it "opens nothing by itself" and that execution happens via cotlet_browser_* tools. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many club_os_run_*_report siblings, but the named resource does that implicitly.

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 two-step usage model: call this first to get the walkthrough, then perform the actions with cotlet_browser_* in the Cloud Browser. That is actionable context an agent can follow. No exclusions or when-not guidance are offered, and there is no explicit routing to the official API alternative beyond a note that credentials require emailing support.

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