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 the concrete claim "opens nothing by itself," telling the agent the call has no side effects. It further discloses that no self-serve API key exists, which is behavioral context not present in any structured field. It could still say more about what the returned instructions look like in volume.

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 scoping statement and the browser handoff are front-loaded and earn their place, but the opening phrase "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler. The trailing sentence on the official API is relevant context yet worded in a roundabout way that dilutes the key point.

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 correctly carries the burden of explaining the return value as a step-by-step procedure and names the follow-on tool family needed to act on it. For a zero-parameter read-only guidance tool, this is close to complete; only the sibling contrast is absent.

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 meaning for the description to add and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misleading on this dimension.

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 ("Get campaign report") and immediately clarifies that it returns step-by-step instructions ("screens, buttons, fields") rather than the report data itself, which prevents a costly misread of the name. It does not differentiate from the report-family siblings such as paired_plus_get_inventory_report or 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?

Gives an explicit workflow: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Paired Plus Cloud Browser. It also flags the absence of a self-serve API path, steering the agent away from assuming an API route. It stops short of stating when to prefer a sibling report tool instead.

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