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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them: "opens nothing by itself" directly reinforces the read-only nature. It adds real context beyond the annotations by explaining the two-phase pattern (guidance here, browser tools there) and why no API exists. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned step list.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the crucial "returns steps, opens nothing" caveat before the workflow handoff. The trailing sentence about Milanote having no public API is useful justification but the "(checked 11 Oct 2026)" timestamp is incidental detail that does not help an agent decide or act.

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 does the right work by describing what comes back (screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next. For a zero-parameter, non-mutating guidance tool this covers essentially everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. No misleading hints about inputs are given.

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 ("Add note in the user's own Milanote account") and immediately clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the write. That distinction separates it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that do the actual interaction, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 prescribes the workflow: call this first, then execute the returned steps with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Milanote Cloud Browser. It does not state when to prefer a sibling card type (add_link, add_task) instead, so the exclusions side is only implied.

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