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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it explicitly says 'opens nothing by itself' and that the return value is a stepwise how-to with concrete UI targets, which prevents an agent from assuming the report is actually created. The trailing note about the host publishing API help but no self-serve key is minor additional context.

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 facts (returns instructions, opens nothing, follow up with browser tools) are front-loaded across the first two sentences, which is good. But the third sentence about the ProSolutions Paired host and the absent API key reads as an aside bolted onto a 0-parameter tool and dilutes the message, and the middle sentence is a long run-on.

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 the essential points: what is returned, that no action is taken, and what to do next. It could still note prerequisites such as the user being signed into Paired Plus in the Cloud Browser, but the core is complete.

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 of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema's additionalProperties=false is self-explanatory.

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 resource (custom report) and, critically, clarifies that the tool only returns step-by-step guidance (screens, buttons, fields) rather than performing the build. This resolves the ambiguity created by the verb 'build' in the name. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling report tools such as paired_plus_get_business_reports.

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 implies when to use this tool (when the agent needs guidance for building a custom report) and prescribes the follow-up path: execute the steps with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. However, it never states when NOT to use it or how it differs from the retrieval-oriented report siblings, leaving that inference to the agent.

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