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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by stating the tool opens nothing and returns a procedural guide rather than performing actions. No contradiction with the read-only annotation. It does not describe output format or scope limits on the returned steps, so not a 5.

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 core purpose and browser handoff are front-loaded and useful, but the trailing paragraph on Mariana Tek's official API, gated credentials, Developer Tools Terms of Service and single-studio developer requests is verbose and mostly irrelevant to deciding whether to call this tool. Only the 'no official MCP server exists' clause earns its place by justifying the browser-automation route.

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, read-only guide tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it returns, that it performs no action, and which sibling tools to use next. The API-access digression adds length without adding invocation-relevant information, leaving it just short of fully complete.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List classes in the user's own Mariana Tek account') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the cotlet_browser_* tools that perform the action. The phrasing 'Returns how to do it in Mariana Tek step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' creates mild ambiguity about whether class data or an instruction guide is returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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 describes the workflow: this tool yields the step-by-step procedure, then the agent should act with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Mariana Tek Cloud Browser. It also clarifies it 'opens nothing by itself', preventing a wrong expectation. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the sequencing between this tool and the browser siblings is clear.

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