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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it "opens nothing by itself" and only returns instructions — no contradiction. With no output schema, it also carries the burden of describing the return value (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), which it does, though it could say more about the response format.

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 (guidance-only, then browser tools) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence explains why browser automation is required (no official MCP server, API behind a paid module). That last aside is useful context but slightly long for a zero-parameter tool.

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 no-param, no-output-schema guidance tool, the definition covers what it does, what it returns conceptually, and what to do next. It stops short of specifying the exact return format or whether the instructions are FreeScout-version-specific, which would fully close the loop.

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 and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing or misleading.

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+resource ("Move conversation in the user's own FreeScout account") and then clarifies the crucial nuance that this tool does not perform the move itself but "Returns how to do it in FreeScout step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." That distinguishes it from an action tool, though the title alone would mislead an agent into thinking it mutates data.

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 two-step workflow: call this to get the FreeScout screens/buttons/fields, then "do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's FreeScout Cloud Browser." It does not name when-not-to-use it or contrast it with siblings like freescout_change_status, but the sequencing guidance is explicit enough for correct invocation.

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