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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — it performs no action itself, returns screen/button/field-level steps, and notes that PeoplePerHour has no public API (checked 12 Oct 2026). It stops short of describing the shape or length of the returned guidance.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the core sentence is a semicolon-joined run-on that mixes what the tool returns, what it does not do, and the follow-up workflow. 'In PeoplePerHour' and 'PeoplePerHour' are repeated three times in quick succession, adding length without information.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), what is not produced (no browser action), and the correct follow-up tool family. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the tool needs no input. No parameter semantics are missing.

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+resource ('List watchlist') scoped to 'the user's own PeoplePerHour account', and immediately distinguishes its role from the browser siblings by saying it returns instructions and 'opens nothing by itself'. An agent can tell it apart from cotlet_browser_* and from peopleperhour_get_account without inspecting schemas.

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 two-step flow: call this to get the step-by-step procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the PeoplePerHour Cloud Browser. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., versus peopleperhour_watch_and_unwatch_projects for modifying the watchlist), so the routing to the mutation sibling is left implicit.

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