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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the non-obvious clarification that the tool only returns instructions and opens nothing. The API/MCP-status note is extra context but doesn't add operational behavior such as auth requirements or what the returned steps look like in structure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the 'returns steps, opens nothing' constraint in the first two sentences. The closing sentence about Humanitix's public API version and absence of an official MCP server is tangential to calling the tool, though it does justify why this guide-based approach 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema guide tool, the description covers what it returns (screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do (opens nothing), and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* tools). Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 and the schema is fully closed, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the only input is the user's own account context.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (stop ticket sales in the user's own Humanitix account) and immediately clarifies that the tool returns a step-by-step guide rather than performing the action. That distinction disambiguates it from sibling mutation tools like humanitix_refund_tickets, though it relies on the reader to infer the difference rather than naming an alternative.

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 a clear workflow: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It also states the tool 'opens nothing by itself,' which sets the expectation for sequencing. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., how this differs from refunding or cancelling an event).

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