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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description confirms the non-acting nature and describes what the response contains (screens, buttons, fields). It also notes the absence of an official Officient MCP server, signalling that the browser path is the only route. It does not mention whether an Officient connection/auth is required before the browser step.

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 key fact — that this returns instructions rather than acting — is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the follow-up workflow comes second. The closing note about Officient's API and the 'checked 22 Oct 2026' date is slightly verbose but earns its place by justifying the browser-tool handoff.

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, no-output-schema guidance tool, the definition covers what is returned and what the agent should do next. The remaining gap is procedural: it does not say what happens if the browser session is not yet open, though the sibling cotlet_browser_open presumably covers that.

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 a closed empty object, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description could have noted that the specific overtime details (date, hours, colleague) must be supplied later through the browser tools, but that is a minor omission.

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 the resource (overtime in the user's Officient account) and immediately clarifies the tool's actual output: step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields). This corrects the misleading 'Add' verb in the name, which could imply the tool performs the write itself. A competent agent can tell what it gets without opening the 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?

It gives a clear workflow: call this first for guidance, then perform the action with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Officient Cloud Browser, and explicitly notes it 'opens nothing by itself'. It does not contrast against a generic guide sibling such as cotlet_app_guide, so the agent must infer that this tool is the Officient-specific path.

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