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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them while adding real value: it says the tool 'opens nothing by itself', returns screen/button/field-level instructions, and must be followed by browser tool calls. The read-only API limitation is useful context about why this guidance tool exists. It does not describe the format or shape of the returned steps.

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 instruction is front-loaded, but the text is padded: 'Eversports Studio Manager' appears five times, and the API paragraph restates the service name redundantly ('Eversports Studio Manager's official API: Eversports Studio Manager has an official Provider API'). The eight enumerated read-only areas add bulk of marginal decision value.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: what comes back (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), that nothing is executed, and which tool family performs the action. It omits how to identify the target membership or what happens if the agent lacks browser tools, a minor gap.

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 properties, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly signals that all specifics (which membership, which prices) are surfaced in the returned steps rather than as inputs.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update membership prices in the user's own Eversports Studio Manager account') and immediately clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the change. This resolves the ambiguity created by the imperative-sounding tool name. It does not differentiate against the many sibling membership tools (assign, pause, terminate), relying on the resource noun alone.

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 clearly states the workflow: call this to get the click path, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It also explains why no API route exists (the official Provider API is read-only across eight read areas), which preempts an agent trying an API path instead. Explicit when-not guidance for the alternative membership tools is absent.

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