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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which removes any risk of the agent expecting a side effect. It also discloses the shape of the return value (screens, buttons, fields) and adds a note about Okendo's official API limits. The API note is vague and the date '22 Oct 2026' is unverifiable context, so it earns context credit without being fully informative.

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?

Three sentences with the key correction ('opens nothing by itself') buried in the middle rather than front-loaded. The trailing 'Okendo's official API: Okendo has an official API, but with limits (checked 23 Oct 2026)' is repetitive and adds little actionable value for the caller.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description does its main job by stating that step-by-step instructions are returned. However, it never explains how the tool knows which review to target — there are no identifiers in the schema and no mention of how scope is determined, or how the agent should locate a review first. That leaves a real operational gap for a supposedly targeted tool.

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 schema declares zero properties at 100% coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. Baseline 4 applies; no additional param meaning is needed or added.

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 second sentence is precise: it 'Returns how to do it in Okendo step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself', which tells an agent this is a guidance tool, not an action tool. The opening line ('Publish review in the user's own Okendo account') reads as if the tool performs the publish, so the agent must read past the first sentence to learn the real behavior. No explicit contrast with guidance siblings such as cotlet_app_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 supplies a usable workflow: call this to get the step sequence, then execute it 'with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Okendo Cloud Browser'. That is clear when-to-use context plus the natural follow-up. It stops short of exclusions — no guidance on when to prefer a sibling guide tool, or what to do when a review still needs listing/approval first.

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