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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', so no agent would mistake it for a write. It also discloses the shape of the return value (screens, buttons, fields) and the underlying API reality (GraphQL API, no official MCP server).

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 guidance is front-loaded in the first sentence and the workflow follows immediately. The trailing note about Ordrestyring's official API is slightly tangential but does justify why browser automation is the prescribed path, so it earns most of its space.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). For a zero-parameter read-only guide tool this is close to complete, with only sibling differentiation left implicit.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required since it only returns procedural guidance.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Log hours in the user's own Ordrestyring account') and immediately clarifies the tool's actual output: step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. That resolves the tension with the title, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similarly named cotlet_app_guide sibling, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 two-stage usage pattern: call this to get instructions, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. What's missing is any when-not guidance, such as whether to prefer a native API path or cotlet_app_guide for non-hour-logging tasks.

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