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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself,' so there is no contradiction and the agent gets an explicit confirmation of side-effect-free behavior. It also adds genuinely new context not in annotations: the official API's capability boundary and the 'checked 17 Oct 2026' freshness note. It does not state prerequisites such as an active Cloud Browser session or available balance, which would have earned a 5.

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 behavior and the hand-off to cotlet_browser_* tools are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The closing API-capability sentence is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by explaining why a browser-based path is needed. Minor trimming of the API enumeration would improve it.

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 responsibility for describing the return value, and it does: step-by-step instructions covering screens, buttons, and fields. Combined with the follow-up workflow guidance, an agent knows what it gets and what to do next. The only gap is the absence of stated prerequisites for the subsequent browser tools.

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; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is required or omitted.

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 ('Publish form in the user's own Fillout account') and then immediately clarifies the real behavior: it 'Returns how to do it in Fillout step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That correction is important because the tool name alone suggests an action tool, and the text pre-empts the wrong reading. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for form creation itself (e.g. fillout_create_form), 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 tells the agent what to do after calling: 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Fillout Cloud Browser.' It also justifies its own existence by noting Fillout's REST API cannot create or edit forms and no MCP server exists for the form builder. There are no explicit when-not-to-use exclusions or a named alternative among the fillout_* siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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