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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, and the description is consistent, reinforcing that the tool 'opens nothing by itself'. It adds genuinely useful behavior detail: the return is human-readable steps covering screens, buttons and fields, and the actual mutation must happen through browser tools.

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 purpose and the follow-up mechanism are front-loaded and tight. The closing note about the ProSolutions Paired host publishing API help with no self-serve key is tangential to invoking this zero-parameter tool and blurs the message without helping the agent act.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: a step-by-step guide with screens, buttons and fields. The only gap is the missing pointer to the sibling that performs the actual send.

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 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Prepare email campaign in the user's own Paired Plus account') and clarifies the mechanism: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than acting. It implicitly separates itself from send-style siblings with 'opens nothing by itself', though it never names paired_plus_send_email_campaign directly.

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 clear sequencing guidance — call this first to get the steps, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It lacks an explicit 'do not use if you want the campaign actually sent' exclusion naming the sibling that does send, which keeps it from a 5.

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