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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), it adds two facts the annotations cannot convey: the tool 'opens nothing by itself' (pure guidance, no side effects on the account) and that MarketSharp's official API is a read-only OData API enabled by admins under API Maintenance. The second point explains why browser automation is required, which is genuinely useful planning context. It does not describe the shape of the returned steps (no output schema exists), which holds it at 4.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and the no-side-effects caveat, which is good. The final sentence is a long run-on carrying the API note plus a parenthetical '(checked 11 Oct 2026)' that reads as a maintenance stamp rather than agent-relevant information and slightly dilutes focus.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons, and fields. It also closes the loop on next actions via the cotlet_browser_* tools. Minor gap: it does not state prerequisites such as being signed in to the MarketSharp Cloud Browser before the guide is actionable.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, though it does not say whether the target contract/account must be identified conversationally or is inferred from the connected account.

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 names a specific resource (contract status) and then discloses the actual delivery mode: it 'Returns how to do it in MarketSharp step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That resolves the ambiguity a name like get_contract_status would otherwise create (guide vs. data fetch). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as cotlet_app_guide or marketsharp_list_jobs, keeping it below 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?

It gives an explicit execution sequence: call this, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's MarketSharp Cloud Browser.' That is real routing guidance rather than implied usage. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or naming a competing alternative for the same task.

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