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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the critical fact that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions, preventing an agent from assuming the import has been performed. It also explains why browser automation is required (no public API, no official MCP server), which is genuine context beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose and the 'returns instructions, opens nothing' caveat are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the execution path. The trailing note is slightly awkwardly worded ('Polarsteps's official API: Polarsteps has no public API...') but still earns its place by justifying the browser-based flow.

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 does explain the shape of the return value (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and the complete workflow that follows. It stops short of covering edge cases such as authentication state or what the instructions look like when the account lacks the relevant feature.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Import steps in the user's own Polarsteps account') and immediately clarifies the actual mechanism: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the import. This corrects the potentially misleading tool name. It distinguishes itself from the browser siblings by naming cotlet_browser_* as the follow-up, but it never contrasts with polarsteps_list_trips or polarsteps_export_trip.

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 sequencing guidance: call this first to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the Polarsteps Cloud Browser. What is missing is explicit exclusion — for example whether cotlet_app_guide is an alternative source of guidance, or what to do if the user is not already logged in.

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