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

The key disclosure, that the tool performs no action itself and only returns guidance, goes beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations and is the most useful sentence in the description. The Cloud Browser prerequisite and the account-ownership constraint are also added context. The closing REST API pricing paragraph does not describe this tool's behavior at all and dilutes the signal.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the second sentence is a run-on that welds the return value, the no-side-effects note, and the handoff together. The trailing Mashvisor REST API pricing sentence (free tier, $129/month, dated check) is an unrelated sales note that an agent does not need in order to select or invoke 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?

For a parameterless, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (ordered steps with screens and fields), that it has no side effects, and what to do next. It is slightly thin on the return shape, such as whether the output names the specific saved search or is plain prose, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is a 4, and the description does not create confusion about inputs.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource ("Run saved search in the user's own Mashvisor account") with a clear statement of what the tool actually produces: step-by-step instructions covering screens, buttons, and fields. It also contrasts itself against the cotlet_browser_* tools that must do the actual work. The only friction is that the name says "run" while the body says it "opens nothing by itself", which an agent must read the description to resolve.

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 call sequence: call this first to get the procedure, then execute it with cotlet_browser_* in the Mashvisor Cloud Browser. That distinguishes it from the browser siblings and from mashvisor_get_property_analysis / mashvisor_export_properties. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or what to do if no saved search exists.

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