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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond that: it says the tool 'opens nothing by itself' (confirming no side effects on the user's session) and describes the return content as step-by-step screens, buttons and fields. The trailing note about PeopleHR's REST API and lack of an official MCP server is background trivia that does not inform invocation.

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 operative information — what it returns and that it opens nothing, plus the handoff to cotlet_browser_* — is front-loaded in the middle sentence. However, the opening clause 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler and the final sentence about PeopleHR's API version and MCP-server status is irrelevant to calling the tool, adding length without decision value.

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, read-only, output-schema-less guide tool, the description covers what an agent needs: it returns procedural instructions, performs no action itself, and the actual work is delegated to cotlet_browser_* tools. The only omission is whether the Cloud Browser session must already exist before calling, but that is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, consistent with the empty object schema.

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 (get employee planner in PeopleHR) and then clarifies the actual nature of the result: step-by-step instructions with screens, buttons and fields rather than live planner data. That clarification is what makes the tool distinguishable from a data-fetching sibling. It stops short of a crisp one-line purpose statement, since 'Get employee planner' alone reads like a data retrieval call.

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 does give the follow-on path explicitly — do the task with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's PeopleHR Cloud Browser — which tells an agent what to do after calling this. It never states when to prefer this over a sibling guide-type tool such as cotlet_app_guide, nor any precondition (e.g., whether the PeopleHR Cloud Browser must already be open). Usage is implied rather than delimited.

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