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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns procedural guidance (screens, buttons, fields) and performs no action itself, requiring a follow-up browser call. The API-availability note is extra context, though the "checked 23 Oct 2026" date is noise.

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?

Wait—reassess: the description is three sentences, front-loads the action, then the mechanism, then the API caveat. The API/date sentence is marginal but supports the "why browser tools" rationale. Minor redundancy only.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what is returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). Combined with the annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the handoff to specific browser tools is left implicit.

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 claims are made that could mislead.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List conversations in the user's own FreeScout account") and clarifies the tool's real nature: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than data. It does not name any sibling freescout_* tool to differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies the workflow ("then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's FreeScout Cloud Browser") and states it "opens nothing by itself," which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like freescout_read_conversation or cotlet_app_guide, and gives no explicit exclusions.

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