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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' — no side effects, no navigation. It also explains the reason the browser tools are required (no public Dext API, no official MCP server, verified 14 Oct 2026), which is context annotations cannot carry. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned instructions.

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 critical constraint — that it returns instructions and performs no action — is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the follow-up tool family is named immediately after. The closing sentence on Dext's API status is somewhat long but earns its place by justifying the browser-automation path rather than leaving the agent guessing why a separate step exists.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do (open anything), and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* tools). Only the level of detail in the returned walkthrough and any prerequisite session state are left unstated.

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 clarify beyond the input schema; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing the call as a request for a walkthrough.

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 concrete resource (extracted data in the user's Dext account) and immediately disambiguates the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing edits, and 'opens nothing by itself'. The opening verb 'Edit' slightly oversells the action until the second clause corrects it, which keeps it from a 5, but an agent can still tell this apart from the browser and ledger siblings.

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 clear two-step usage pattern: call this tool to get the Dext UI walkthrough, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Dext Cloud Browser. It names the alternative family explicitly but does not distinguish this from cotlet_app_guide or say when not to use it.

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