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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive and idempotent, and the description is consistent with them: 'opens nothing by itself' explains why a create-named tool is read-only. It adds real behavioral context — the return is a screen/button/field walkthrough, and execution requires the browser tools. The Developer API paragraph is background justification rather than behavior, so it doesn't add further transparency.

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 precise, stating what is returned and what is not done. The final sentence about Momence's OAuth API is long and mostly tangential, useful only as justification that no API shortcut exists. It could be trimmed to a short clause without losing the guardrail.

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, non-mutating guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back and what to do next. It could say more about the expected shape or length of the returned steps, but nothing essential for 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 zero parameters and the schema is an empty closed object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Under the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate; no parameter details are needed.

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 verb and resource (create class in the user's own Momence account) and immediately clarifies the surprising part: the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the creation. It names the cotlet_browser_* tools as the execution path, which separates it from the browser siblings. The only residual friction is that the name 'create_class' suggests an action while the tool is actually a 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 gives clear context for use: when the agent needs to create a class in Momence, this returns the procedure and then the agent completes it with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. Explicit exclusions ('opens nothing by itself') prevent misuse as a write call. It does not compare against sibling tools like momence_book_customer_into_class, but those cover different operations.

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