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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, and the description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior: it returns procedural guidance rather than performing any action, and 'opens nothing by itself.' The closing paragraph adds useful external context (Mashvisor has a separate paid REST API with a 30-request free tier, plans from $129/mo) that is not in any structured field. It does not say what format the returned guide takes beyond 'screens, buttons, fields.'

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?

Well front-loaded — the actual function and its non-action nature come first, and the browser-tool handoff follows. However, the third sentence about Mashvisor's commercial API pricing (free tier of 30 requests, $129/month for 500 calls, dated 'checked 11 Oct 2026') is lengthy and tangential to invoking this tool, adding bulk to an otherwise tight definition.

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 guidance tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies what an agent needs: what it returns (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), that it performs no side effects, and which tool family to use next. The only gap is the exact return shape, which is not covered by an output schema.

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 the schema carries no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not waste words on parameter explanations. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 ('Export properties in the user's own Mashvisor account') and immediately clarifies the tool's real function: it 'Returns how to do it in Mashvisor step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' That distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* executers. It is only implicitly distinguished from siblings like mashvisor_get_property_analysis or mashvisor_run_saved_search.

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?

Gives clear workflow routing: call this first for the step-by-step instructions, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Mashvisor Cloud Browser.' This tells the agent both the ordering and the alternative tool family. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., when to use the official REST Data API instead) is given beyond a pricing note.

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