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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by stating the tool 'opens nothing by itself' – consistent, not contradictory, despite the verb 'Set'. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: that the return value is a procedural walkthrough with screens, buttons, and fields. It does not quantify output size or describe format, keeping it at a 4.

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 content is front-loaded and purposeful, but the final sentence is circular and redundant: 'Plausible's official API: Plausible has an official API, but a limited one (checked 22 Oct 2026).' The future-stamped date is unexplained and adds noise rather than clarity.

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 returned (a step-by-step guide) and what must happen next (browser tools). It does not state what happens if the user's Plausible session is unauthenticated or how complete the guide is for edge cases, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 (schema coverage 100%, empty object), so the baseline for this dimension is a 4. Nothing in the schema needs explanation and the description correctly spends no words on parameters.

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 resource (email reports in Plausible) and, crucially, clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action: 'Returns how to do it in Plausible step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself.' This resolves the apparent mismatch with the name 'set', though the phrasing still reads like a mutation at first glance. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by pointing at them as the actual executors.

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 instruction: 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Plausible Cloud Browser', which tells the agent exactly what to do after calling. The note that Plausible's official API is 'limited' hints at why this route exists instead of an API call. It stops short of explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must already be logged in), so not a 5.

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