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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself' and explains the return content (screens, buttons, fields). It also discloses the API access constraint (request form, Tenant ID, Millennium Systems credentials), which is genuine context beyond the annotations. Minor gap: no detail on how long or how structured the returned steps are.

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 purpose and the browser hand-off are front-loaded and tight, but the trailing paragraph about Meevo's Public API and the request-form process is background justification rather than invocation guidance. The 'checked 11 Oct 2026' date adds noise to an otherwise compact 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 guide with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, what it does not do, and which tools to use next. The only substantive omission is nothing about how to obtain the resulting steps beyond a single call, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameter semantics to compensate for. The description correctly implies the call is context-free, driven only by the user's Meevo session.

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 verb and resource (selling a package in Meevo) and immediately clarifies that the tool actually returns a step-by-step procedure rather than performing the sale. That correction prevents the agent from mistaking it for an executing tool, though the opening phrase 'Sell package' still reads as an action verb for a read-only guide.

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 explicitly states the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and directs the agent to perform the actual actions with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Meevo Cloud Browser, which is a clear hand-off to the right siblings. It does not spell out when this guide should be skipped or what to do if the browser session is unavailable, but the routing guidance is unambiguous.

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