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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces and explains this by stating it opens nothing and only returns a procedure, which prevents an agent from assuming a mutation occurs. It also discloses the required follow-up tooling (cotlet_browser_*) and the API situation, adding real context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about response size or limits.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and the crucial "returns instructions, opens nothing" clarification. The closing note about the ProSolutions Paired API is somewhat tangential but earns its place by explaining why the browser-based route is the only path.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does ("step by step (screens, buttons, fields)"). Combined with the handoff to the browser tools, an agent has what it needs, though the exact shape of the returned procedure is only roughly sketched.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required to request the guide.

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 and resource ("Checkout sale in the user's own Paired Plus account") and immediately clarifies the actual mechanism: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than executing the sale. That distinction separates it from siblings like paired_plus_refund_sale and from the browser tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 clear usage context: call this from an AI agent to obtain the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser, and it "opens nothing by itself." The when-not is implicit (do not expect this tool to perform the sale) rather than an explicit alternative-selection rule, which keeps it short of a 5.

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