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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "opens nothing by itself," which is the single most important behavioral fact for an agent tempted to assume a mutation occurred. It also discloses the shape of the response (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), adding context beyond the annotation set, though it says nothing about scope limits or failure modes if the app isn't connected.

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 and clear, but the trailing sentence about DICE's read-only partner API and a token generated in MIO with a check date is tangential detail that does not change how the tool is invoked. It earns partial credit as justification for the browser route, but it bloats an otherwise two-sentence definition.

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 does so concretely (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). Given zero parameters and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it and knows what to do next; only the prerequisite of an open DICE Cloud Browser session is left implicit.

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 the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax an agent could get wrong. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 specific verb and resource ("Update ticket tier in the user's own DICE account") and, crucially, corrects the misleading verb by stating it "Returns how to do it in DICE step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." That separates it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that perform the actual clicks; the only weakness is that the opening clause mirrors the title rather than leading with the guidance-only nature.

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 workflow: call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's DICE Cloud Browser. It explains why browser automation is required (DICE's partner API is read-only), which functions as an implicit exclusion of any API-based path, though it does not name cotlet_app_guide or state when not to use this tool.

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