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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description usefully adds that the tool performs no action and only returns procedural guidance, plus that execution must happen through the browser tools. It adds no detail on what the returned steps look like in practice or any limits on freshness.

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 two sentences are well front-loaded and actionable. The trailing API paragraph (REST v3 scope, beta MCP server, 'checked 22 Oct 2026') is non-actionable context that doesn't help an agent decide or call, and 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler.

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 zero parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing an agent needs that structured data can't: that this returns instructions and that execution is a separate browser step. Only the shape of the returned steps and their expected freshness are left unspecified.

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 closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. No false implication of missing 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 the resource (email report in the user's Constant Contact account) and, crucially, corrects what the name implies: the tool 'Returns how to do it in Constant Contact step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' rather than the report data itself. It does not differentiate this from the sibling constant_contact_* function tools or from cotlet_app_guide, but an agent can still tell what it produces.

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 an explicit workflow: call this to get instructions, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Constant Contact Cloud Browser', and states 'opens nothing by itself'. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide or the direct browser tools without this guide).

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