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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description supplies the non-obvious reason: the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns a guide. It also names the execution environment (user's Plausible Cloud Browser) and the agent-agnostic usage, which annotations cannot express.

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 core two sentences are front-loaded and useful, but the trailing sentence about Plausible's official API being 'limited (checked 22 Oct 2026)' is vague, dated oddly, and never explains what the limitation means for the caller. It reads as filler that muddies an otherwise crisp definition.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so ('returns how to do it in Plausible step by step — screens, buttons, fields'). Missing prerequisites such as needing an authenticated Plausible Cloud Browser session, and any note on plan/site-count limits.

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 of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter details and instead explains the interaction model, though it never states that no arguments are required.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource (create a site in the user's Plausible account) and immediately clarifies the crucial nuance: this tool does not perform the action, it returns step-by-step instructions. That distinction separates it cleanly from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that actually execute the UI actions.

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?

Clear workflow routing: call this first to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Plausible Cloud Browser. It lacks an explicit 'do not use if the site already exists / use plausible_list_sites first' exclusion, which would have made it a 5.

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