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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the non-obvious behavioral contract: it performs no action, returns procedural guidance (screens, buttons, fields), and requires browser tools to complete the task. It also states there is no public Polarsteps API, explaining why a browser-driven flow exists.

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 key constraint ('opens nothing by itself') is present but buried mid-sentence in a long run-on. The ChatGPT/Claude framing and the 'checked 11 Oct 2026' audit note are filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke, though the API-absence note has some justification value.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so adequately (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). For a zero-parameter, read-only guide tool this is nearly complete; only the relationship to cotlet_app_guide is left unaddressed.

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. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and the empty schema leaves nothing for the description to compensate for.

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+resource (export a trip in Polarsteps) and immediately clarifies the twist: the tool returns a step-by-step how-to rather than performing the export, and 'opens nothing by itself'. That resolves the name/behavior ambiguity, though the opening sentence alone would mislead an agent into expecting an action.

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 gives a clear follow-on path ('then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Polarsteps Cloud Browser'), which tells the agent this is a precursor step. However, it never distinguishes itself from the similarly-scoped sibling cotlet_app_guide, and gives no explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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