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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive with openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it explicitly says nothing is opened or changed by the call, that execution requires the browser tools, and that GlossGenius offers no public API, webhooks or MCP server (with a check date). That last point justifies why a browser-driven approach is necessary, which the annotations alone would not convey.

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 operative facts (returns a guide, opens nothing, then use cotlet_browser_*) are front-loaded, but the opening clause about ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent is filler, and the 'Official API' sentence is slightly tangential even though it explains the integration constraint.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is missing: what the call returns, that it has no side effects, and which tools to use next. The only gap is the concrete shape of the returned guide (format/length), which is minor for a zero-input helper.

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 with an empty schema, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline applies and the description correctly focuses on return behavior and follow-up actions instead.

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 makes the actual behavior explicit: it returns a step-by-step guide to screens, buttons and fields rather than the sales data itself, and it 'opens nothing by itself'. This corrects the misleading 'get_sales_summary' name and separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, though the first sentence ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') adds noise rather than clarity.

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 for the how-to, then perform it with cotlet_browser_* tools in the GlossGenius Cloud Browser. It does not say when to skip this tool or how it differs from the similar cotlet_app_guide sibling, so the choice between the two guide-style tools is left to inference.

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