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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the tool performs no action itself and returns a procedural guide rather than a result. That is the single most important thing an agent needs to know here. It could go further on the shape/bounds of the returned steps, but the critical disclosure is present.

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?

Sentences are long and chained with semicolons, and phrases like "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" add no selection value. The trailing note "Immobiliare.it's official API: Immobiliare.it has no public API... (checked 11 Oct 2026)" is awkwardly phrased and a dated future check weakens credibility. The most important fact (it opens nothing by itself) is buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

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 rich annotations, the definition supplies what is needed to invoke it correctly: no arguments, no side effects, and a follow-up path via the browser tools. Only the nature of the returned step list (format, granularity) is left implicit.

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; baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

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 specifies a concrete verb and resource — returning step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) for requesting a visit in Immobiliare.it — and explicitly says it "opens nothing by itself." The opening clause ("Request visit in the user's own Immobiliare.it account") reads like an executor at first pass and only gets corrected later, which slightly blurs the purpose, but the net meaning is unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Immobiliare.it Cloud Browser. It also explains why this route exists (no public Immobiliare.it API for listings, messages or visit requests). It stops short of explicit exclusions against siblings such as immobiliare_reply_to_message or immobiliare_create_listing.

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