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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description supports rather than contradicts them by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' — resolving the apparent tension between 'create task' and a read-only hint. It also discloses the return shape (screens, buttons, fields). Minor non-behavioral filler (the REST API / no-MCP-server note) dilutes it slightly.

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 sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing sentence about Gladly's REST API version and the 'checked 20 Oct 2026' audit note is irrelevant to invoking the tool and costs space. Roughly a third of the text is metadata rather than actionable 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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it returns and how to act on that output, which is the critical missing piece an agent needs. No pagination, auth, or error behavior is described, but neither is strongly implied by this tool's shape.

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 no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a parameterless schema is a 4. The description correctly implies nothing is supplied at call time, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 ('Create task ... in Gladly') and immediately clarifies the unusual mechanism: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like gladly_add_note or cotlet_browser_click. It stops short of naming a competing alternative such as cotlet_app_guide, so it is clear but not maximally 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?

Gives an explicit two-step workflow: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools. That is concrete when-to-use guidance. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., versus cotlet_app_guide or the other gladly_* mutation tools), 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.