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 'opens nothing by itself' and specifies the return shape (screens, buttons, fields). It also discloses that no official MCP server exists, explaining why browser automation is required. No contradiction with the annotations; the apparent mismatch between the 'add credits' name and read-only behavior is resolved in the text.

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 operational content is front-loaded and efficient, but roughly two-thirds of the text is a verbose aside about Developer Tools Terms of Service, single-studio developers, and a verification date. That detail supports the 'why browser automation' point but is disproportionately long for a zero-parameter guidance 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 no input schema and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: a step-by-step guide with screens, buttons and fields, plus the handoff to browser tools. The only gap is whether the returned steps are structured or free text, which is minor for a zero-param tool.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It does not need to explain inputs, and it correctly focuses on output and follow-up actions instead.

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 resource (class credits in the user's own Mariana Tek account) and immediately clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. This correction is essential because the tool name and title ('Add class credits') imply a mutation. It could be even sharper by leading with 'Returns instructions for...' instead of the imperative framing.

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?

Explicitly sequences usage: call this for the walkthrough, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Mariana Tek Cloud Browser, which distinguishes it from the sibling reservation and customer tools. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g., if the user wants an API-based flow), but the API-gating note effectively rules that path out.

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