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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them ('opens nothing by itself'). It adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the return content shape (screens, buttons, fields), the required follow-up browser tools, and the reason for the indirect approach (Peerspace has no public host API as of a stated check date). It does not say whether the returned procedure is versioned/timestamped beyond that check date or how it behaves if the account context differs.

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 critical fact — that this tool only returns instructions and performs no action — is buried in the second sentence behind a promotional clause ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') that repeats the name. The API-availability note is useful but its dated provenance ('checked 11 Oct 2026') is verbose. It could be front-loaded in one sentence: 'Returns a step-by-step Peerspace procedure; performs no action — execute it with cotlet_browser_*.'

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, zero-output-schema guide tool, this covers the essentials: what comes back, that nothing is executed, which sibling tools complete the task, and why there is no direct API path. The main remaining ambiguity is that nothing is passed in, so the agent is not told what context the returned steps are tailored to or whether they are generic.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline is 4. The description could have noted that the proposal specifics (listing, price, dates) must be supplied in conversation since nothing is passed to the tool, but that is a minor omission rather than a semantic gap.

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 makes clear that despite the name, the tool does not send anything: it 'Returns how to do it in Peerspace step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'. That is a specific verb+resource (returns a step-by-step procedure for sending a custom proposal) and it implicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that perform the actual clicks. The opening clause 'Send custom proposal in the user's own Peerspace account' slightly re-inforces the misleading name before the correction arrives.

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 explicitly states 'opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Peerspace Cloud Browser', which names the alternatives and the sequencing. What is missing is any when-not-to-use condition (e.g. when the agent already knows the Peerspace flow, or when the task is an inquiry reply, which has its own sibling tool).

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