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 with 'opens nothing by itself', which is genuinely useful disambiguation for an agent tempted to assume a write occurred. It adds context annotations cannot carry: what the return contains (screens, buttons, fields) and that a browser session is required downstream. It does not cover auth/prerequisite state of the browser or what happens if the steps fail partway.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the crucial 'returns steps, opens nothing' qualifier, which is the right ordering. The trailing sentence about DICE's partner API is relevant but reads as an aside bundled into an already long clause, slightly diluting focus.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so concretely ('screens, buttons, fields'). Combined with the instruction on which tools to use next and the API caveat, an agent has enough to act correctly; only failure/edge-case handling is absent.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing to mis-specify. The description could have noted that all event details are supplied implicitly during the browser phase, but that is a minor omission.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create event in the user's own DICE account') and immediately clarifies the tool's actual deliverable — step-by-step instructions, not the action itself — which preempts confusion from the imperative name. It also names the sibling family (cotlet_browser_*) that performs the real work, so it is distinguishable from every sibling.

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?

Gives an explicit two-phase usage pattern: call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* in the user's DICE Cloud Browser. It also rules out the official route by noting the DICE partner Ticket Holders GraphQL API is read-only, so the agent knows why this path exists instead.

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