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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious behavior: it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns procedural instructions rather than data. That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to avoid assuming the save already happened. The trailing note about LiveChat's REST/Agent Chat/Configuration APIs and the narrow MCP server adds scope context but not callable behavior.

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 essential facts (returns a step-by-step guide, opens nothing, execute via cotlet_browser_*) are front-loaded, which is good. However, the phrase 'LiveChat (Text)' is repeated four times in a short span, and the closing sentence about LiveChat's official APIs and MCP server status is filler that does not change how the agent calls this tool.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the definition supplies what matters: what comes back (steps, screens, buttons, fields) and that the tool has no side effects. For a guide-returning tool this is essentially complete. The only omission is that it never tells the agent what to do if it does not actually have browser access in the user's account.

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 4 baseline applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, though it never explicitly says how the target canned response is identified — presumably the steps are generic, which the description leaves implicit.

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 states a specific resource (canned response in LiveChat Text) and, crucially, corrects the naive reading of the name: the tool 'Returns how to do it... step by step' rather than persisting anything. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* tools by saying those are what actually perform the action. It does not differentiate against the other livechat_* siblings or cotlet_app_guide, which is the only gap.

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 to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Cloud Browser. That is an explicit when-to-use and a named alternative for the execution half. It does not state when this is unnecessary (e.g. if the agent already knows the flow) or how it relates to cotlet_app_guide.

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