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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces and explains that: it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns procedural guidance. That is meaningful added context, since the tool name otherwise implies a write operation. It does not describe the shape of the returned steps (length, formatting, error cases), so it falls short of fully rich behavioral disclosure.

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 statement (returns steps, opens nothing) is front-loaded and useful, but it is padded with marketing phrasing ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a dated API-check aside ('checked 11 Oct 2026') that adds no operational value. The sentence structure is run-on, packing the API note into the same breath as the usage guidance.

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 correctly carries the burden of explaining what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what does not happen (no action taken). Combined with the follow-up browser-tool path, an agent has enough to act. The only gap is how lease specifics are sourced given a parameterless schema.

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 input schema has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description does not, however, explain how the tool knows which account or lease details to use given the empty schema, leaving the implicit conversation-context dependency unstated.

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 the resource (a lease) and, crucially, clarifies the actual output: step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than a created record. That resolves the mismatch between the verb 'create' in the name and the non-executing nature of the tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling guides like cotlet_app_guide, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 an explicit workflow: call this to get the DoorLoop steps, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It also notes the official API is not self-serve, which explains why the browser path is required. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition or when another guide tool would be preferable.

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