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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the tool returns step-by-step screen/button/field instructions, performs no action itself, and requires the caller to follow up with browser tools. The API/MCP status note explains why the browser path exists, which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 in the first sentence, which is good. The trailing API aside ('Deputy's official API: Yes... but no official MCP server (checked 20 Oct 2026)') reads as filler and a dated verification stamp that adds little to tool selection. The sentence is also long and runs several ideas together.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* tools). The main remaining gap is not stating the format or granularity of the returned guidance beyond that phrase.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline is 4 when parameter count is zero and the schema is closed. No parameter-related omissions to penalize.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Publish shifts in the user's own Deputy account') and immediately clarifies that the tool only 'Returns how to do it in Deputy step by step' and 'opens nothing by itself'. That distinction resolves the mismatch between the action-oriented name and the guidance-only behavior. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling cotlet_app_guide, which is the closest alternative.

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?

The follow-up path is explicit: after getting the steps, 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Deputy Cloud Browser'. That is useful workflow guidance. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, no conditions distinguishing it from cotlet_app_guide, and no explanation of when to prefer reading instructions over using an API-backed sibling.

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