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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond that — it does not perform the action, and it returns procedural content whose shape (screens, buttons, fields) is disclosed. However, it says nothing about how long the guide is, whether it depends on the user already being authenticated in the browser, or what happens if the Dext UI has changed.

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 workflow is front-loaded, but the opening clause 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is promotional filler, and the API-availability sentence with the 'checked 14 Oct 2026' date is verbose. The claim that Dext has no public API does justify why browser automation is required, but it could be stated far more compactly.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the definition covers what it returns and how to act on the result. The only real gap is the absence of any prerequisite about browser session state before the cotlet_browser_* step.

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?

With zero parameters there is no schema surface to explain, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, which matches the empty schema.

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 the specific resource (the user's own Dext 'items to review') and clarifies that the return value is a step-by-step procedure with screens, buttons and fields rather than the items themselves. That clarification is important because the name implies it lists items, but the description resolves the ambiguity. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, which keeps it just short of 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 clear workflow: call this first to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Dext Cloud Browser, and explicitly notes it 'opens nothing by itself'. What's missing is routing against related siblings such as cotlet_app_guide, so an agent can't tell from this text alone why it should pick this guide over the general app guide.

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