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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds meaningful context: it opens nothing, returns procedural guidance, and notes that Petpooja publishes no restaurant API documentation or keys. The only gap is that it does not describe the shape or length of the returned guidance, though that is secondary for a read-only instructional tool.

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 description is compact and front-loads the key clarification that the tool does not perform the update. It is slightly dense in the final sentence, but every clause — the return behavior, the non-action, the browser handoff, and the API absence — carries useful 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step instructions) and that nothing is opened. What remains missing is how the target item and price are identified, which is essential for an agent to invoke this tool meaningfully rather than generically.

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 schema has zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4. However, the tool's nominal action inherently requires knowing which item and which new price, and the description never says whether those come from conversation context or are inferred elsewhere. That omission is significant enough to pull the score down.

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 names a specific verb and resource and immediately clarifies the true nature of the tool: it returns step-by-step Petpooja instructions rather than performing the price change. It also explicitly separates itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that do the actual work, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is spelled out: call this to get the Petpooja screens/buttons/fields, then execute the change with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. It also states the tool opens nothing by itself, which prevents an agent from assuming it performs the update.

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