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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses the actual return content (screens, buttons, fields), that the tool performs no external side effect, which tool family must follow it, and the underlying constraint that Evite has no public API or official MCP server. This is exactly the context an agent needs to interpret a readOnlyHint on a tool named 'create'.

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 behavioral content is front-loaded in the second clause, but the opening 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler that does not help tool selection, and the closing API-availability note with a dated verification stamp reads as promotional footnote rather than operational 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 parameters and no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it says what comes back (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and what the agent must do next. Only the format granularity of the returned steps is left unspecified, which is minor for a zero-argument tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level claims are made or needed.

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 (create an Evite event) and then immediately clarifies the real behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the creation. That correction resolves the tension with the 'create' name, though the first sentence alone would mislead an agent about what the tool actually returns.

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 usage flow – call this to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser – and explicitly states it opens nothing by itself. It does not reference the Evite-specific siblings (evite_update_event, evite_add_guests) or state when-not-to-use, so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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