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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully confirms "opens nothing by itself." However it omits the most consequential behavior: with zero parameters, it never explains how the tool knows which conversation or what reply content to produce, and gives no detail on the shape or limits of the returned instructions.

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 disclaimer ("returns how to do it... opens nothing by itself") should be front-loaded but instead follows a marketing-flavored opener ("from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent"). The trailing API-version/date parenthetical is tangential to invoking the tool, though it does explain why the browser path exists.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return value — it does so only loosely ("screens, buttons, fields"). Combined with no preconditions and no account of how the target conversation is identified given zero inputs, an agent has enough to call it but not enough to predict what it gets back.

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 schema has zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter meaning to add. The description does helpfully frame that the tool takes no input and only emits a procedure, though it leaves the zero-parameter design unexplained.

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 name and first sentence say "Reply to customer," which suggests a write action, before the second sentence reveals that the tool actually returns step-by-step instructions and "opens nothing by itself." That correction is present and specific ("screens, buttons, fields"), but the misleading framing plus no differentiation from a sibling guide-style tool (cotlet_app_guide) keeps it at vague-to-clear.

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 an explicit hand-off path — use this first, then act via cotlet_browser_* in the user's Gladly Cloud Browser — which is real sequencing guidance. But it never states preconditions (browser session open, user logged in), nor when to prefer this over cotlet_app_guide or the other gladly_* action tools.

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