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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful fact that the tool "opens nothing by itself" and returns screens/buttons/fields for the agent to act on. That tells an agent the call is informational-only, which the annotations alone would not convey. It stops short of stating session/auth requirements or whether the guide is project-specific.

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 purpose and the after-use instructions are front-loaded and useful, but "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler and the no-public-API note with a dated "checked 12 Oct 2026" stamp is appended without directly changing how the agent calls the tool.

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-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what comes back (screens, buttons, fields) and that nothing is executed. What remains unresolved is whether the brief returned is generic or tied to a specific project/account state, which matters because there is no parameter to select a project.

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. The description correctly implies no input is required, avoiding any false expectation of a project ID argument.

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 project brief in the user's own PeoplePerHour account") and clarifies that the return value is a step-by-step procedure rather than fetched data. This distinguishes it from the other peopleperhour_* read tools, though the name/output mismatch ("get project brief" vs. returning instructions) takes a moment to reconcile.

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 a clear follow-on path: read the returned steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* in the PeoplePerHour Cloud Browser. It does not say when to choose this over cotlet_app_guide or over the direct list/search tools, nor when a brief is needed (e.g., before applying to a project).

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