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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', clearly telling the agent the tool is a no-op guide that must be followed by browser actions. What is missing is any detail on the shape of the returned steps, latency, or failure modes, but the key behavioral contract is disclosed.

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 final sentence about Gorgias's REST API and a beta MCP server in Open Beta adds no value for selecting or invoking this tool and is pure bloat, as is 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent'. The most important fact — that the tool returns instructions rather than merging — is placed second behind a misleading claim.

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 zero-parameter guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back (screens, buttons, fields) and what the agent must do next, which is the essential context. Minor gaps remain around return format specifics and whether the steps are Gorgias-version dependent.

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; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter-like details.

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 'Merge tickets', which reads as a write action, while the second sentence reveals the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions and performs nothing. The true purpose is stated but only after a misleading lead, and there is no differentiation from the sibling cotlet_app_guide, which likely serves a similar instructional role.

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?

The description does give the follow-up workflow ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Gorgias Cloud Browser'), which is genuinely useful routing information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus cotlet_app_guide or the direct gorgias_* mutation siblings, and no prerequisites or when-not conditions.

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