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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is supplied. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it 'opens nothing by itself', making clear the call is a pure retrieval of instructions requiring a follow-up action, and it discloses API version and the absence of an official MCP server as a freshness note.

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 disclosure ('opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools') is buried at the end of the second sentence rather than front-loaded. Filler such as 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the API version/date trivia in the third sentence consume space without helping the agent decide or call.

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 output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it only partially does: 'screens, buttons, fields' step-by-step guidance is described, but nothing says whether it also returns the actual orders, how large the response is, or what to do if the user has no Humanitix account. For a zero-parameter guide tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap around the return payload.

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 semantics for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misstated on this dimension.

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 first sentence says the tool will 'List orders in the user's own Humanitix account', which reads like it retrieves order data, but the second sentence reveals it actually 'Returns how to do it in Humanitix step by step'. That internal tension leaves the agent guessing whether the output is data or instructions. The subject matter (Humanitix orders) is specific, but the core action is not cleanly resolved.

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 route the agent forward by saying 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Humanitix Cloud Browser', which is useful follow-on guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like cotlet_app_guide or the other humanitix_* tools, nor any preconditions such as needing an open browser session.

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