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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world; the description reinforces this with "opens nothing by itself," so no contradiction exists. It goes further than the annotations by disclosing the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) and the reason browser automation is required (no public API, no developer docs), which is genuinely useful context for planning.

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 no-side-effects caveat and the browser-tool handoff are well placed, but the opening sentence spends its first clause on a capability the tool lacks. "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" and the redundant "PeoplePerHour's official API:" prefix are filler, and the "(checked 12 Oct 2026)" date adds little for an agent deciding how to call 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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and safety fully covered by annotations, the description supplies what is missing: what a call returns and what must follow it. Fine-grained details such as the format of the returned walkthrough or whether an existing browser session is required are left implicit, but not to a degree that would cause a mis-call.

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 and the schema is closed with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description correctly frames the call as requiring no input from the agent.

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 first clause, "Search projects in the user's own PeoplePerHour account," describes a search the tool does not perform; the description then corrects itself by saying it "Returns how to do it in PeoplePerHour step by step" and "opens nothing by itself." The actual function (returning a UI walkthrough) is stated, but the opening misdirection and the name/title conflict leave real ambiguity about whether results or instructions come back.

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 clearly establishes the two-step workflow: call this for guidance, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser, which is a concrete alternative-selection rule. What's missing is any exclusion against adjacent siblings like peopleperhour_list_my_projects or peopleperhour_search_offers, so an agent could still hesitate over which surface to use for actual data.

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