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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it opens nothing by itself, returns a step-by-step walkthrough (screens, buttons, fields), and notes Ordrestyring's GraphQL API / lack of an official MCP server, explaining why the browser-tool handoff exists. Missing only detail on output shape or failure modes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the follow-up-tool instruction comes second. The trailing sentence about Ordrestyring's GraphQL API and the 'checked 31 Oct 2026' date is slightly tangential but does justify the browser-based approach, so it mostly earns its place.

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 description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do (open anything), and how to proceed afterward. An agent has enough to call it correctly and chain the next step.

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 description correctly implies no input is needed, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Approve hours in the user's own Ordrestyring account') and immediately clarifies the tool's real nature: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the approval. That distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like ordrestyring_log_hours or cotlet_browser_click, though it does not explicitly contrast with cotlet_app_guide, which could plausibly offer similar guidance.

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?

Gives a clear usage flow: call this to get the step-by-step procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. It does not state when NOT to use it or name cotlet_app_guide as an alternative, but the sequencing guidance is explicit and actionable.

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