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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' — a genuinely useful clarification that the call has no side effects and only returns guidance. It also notes the absence of a public Milanote API, which explains why the browser-tool fallback exists. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned instructions, keeping it below 5.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, which is good, but the sentence is padded with audience marketing ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a dated provenance note ('checked 11 Oct 2026') that do not help an agent decide or invoke. The useful content could be stated in roughly half the words.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only gestures at that ('step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). Critically, it never resolves how the instructions are targeted when no board identifier can be supplied — presumably generic guidance — which leaves a real ambiguity for the calling agent.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description adds no parameter meaning because none exists.

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 states a specific behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions for exporting a board (screens, buttons, fields) rather than performing the export. This corrects the potentially misleading name 'export_board' and separates it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools. It falls short of 5 because it never contrasts itself with the sibling tool literally named 'export_board', leaving ambiguity about which one actually performs the export.

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 implies usage ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Milanote Cloud Browser'), which gives an agent a follow-up path. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, and with a sibling named 'export_board' in the list, the agent gets no rule for choosing between the two.

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