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 corroborates rather than contradicts them by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions. It adds the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the required follow-up actor (the user's Faire Cloud Browser), though it says nothing about whether the steps are version-specific or how to handle a failed browser step.

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 clarification ('opens nothing by itself') lands in the second sentence after a marketing-flavored opener naming ChatGPT, Claude and 'any AI agent'. The closing note on Faire's External API is relevant context but stays vague — it never says whether inventory is among the endpoints actually covered — so it costs words without settling the question it raises.

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 description covers what comes back, that nothing is executed server-side, and which tools to chain next. The only soft spot is the ambiguous API-coverage remark, which leaves the agent unsure when the browser route is mandatory versus optional.

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. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, since the guidance is generic to the account.

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 second sentence states precisely what the tool does: 'Returns how to do it in Faire step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That is a specific verb plus deliverable, and it also names the sibling family (cotlet_browser_*) that performs the actual mutation, so an agent can tell guide-tool from execution-tool without opening a schema.

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 workflow: call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Faire Cloud Browser. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when the partial Faire API suffices instead of the browser path), which keeps it below a 5.

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