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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the output is a step-by-step walkthrough naming screens, buttons and fields, and nothing is opened or mutated as a side effect. It stops short of describing output length or format.

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 two clauses are front-loaded and efficient, but the closing sentence about Okendo's official API is dangling and unearned: it names no limits, draws no consequence for this tool, and cites a future-checked date that does not help an agent decide anything. Trimming it would sharpen the definition without losing information.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what it returns, that it performs no action, and which tool family executes the result. The only shortfall is the vague API-limits remark, which raises a question it never answers.

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. The description correctly implies no input is required, and there are no parameters whose meaning could be clarified further.

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 (answer a product question in the user's Okendo account) and, crucially, clarifies that the tool only returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. That resolves the ambiguity in the name, which could otherwise read as generating a customer-facing answer. It does not differentiate itself from a sibling like cotlet_app_guide, which appears to serve a similar guidance role.

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 an explicit follow-on path: this tool produces the plan, then the agent executes it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Okendo Cloud Browser. It also states the negative case clearly ('opens nothing by itself'), so the agent will not expect side effects. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer this over other guidance-style siblings such as cotlet_app_guide.

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