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

Despite readOnlyHint=true on what sounds like a write action, the description resolves the tension explicitly by saying it 'opens nothing by itself' and that the real action happens through cotlet_browser_* tools. It also discloses that Comeet's official API is gated by discretionary partner terms, explaining why browser automation is required — genuinely additive context beyond the annotations, though it omits any detail about failure modes or session requirements.

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 second sentence is a long chain and the third sentence about Comeet's API licensing, including a check date, is bulky for the value it adds. The audience list ('ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') is promotional padding.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next, which is what an agent needs before proceeding. It does not describe what happens if the user's Comeet session is not authenticated in the Cloud Browser.

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 schema meaning left for the description to supply. Nothing in the text misleads about inputs.

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 (add comment) scoped to the user's own Comeet account, and immediately clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other comeet_* action siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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 a usable workflow hint ('opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools'), which tells an agent the tool is a preparatory step. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings such as cotlet_app_guide or when an add-comment task should not go through this path.

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