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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the return value is procedural instructions, and the tool performs no navigation or side effects on its own. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned guide.

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 behavior and the follow-up workflow are front-loaded and easy to act on. However, the closing sentence about Postscript's official API and MCP server 'not building or sending campaigns' is boilerplate unrelated to reading message analytics and adds noise to an otherwise tight 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, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description needs only to explain what comes back and what to do next, which it does. An agent knows this yields instructions rather than data and must follow up with browser tools. The off-topic API note is the only element that does not contribute.

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; baseline is 4. No parameter-related claims are made that could conflict with the empty schema.

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 makes clear that despite the name, this tool returns a step-by-step guide (screens, buttons, fields) rather than analytics data, and that the actual retrieval happens via cotlet_browser_* tools. That resolves the ambiguity an agent would otherwise have from the misleading 'get_message_analytics' name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from cotlet_app_guide, the other guide-style sibling.

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 concrete workflow: call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Postscript Cloud Browser, and it explicitly says the tool opens nothing by itself. What is missing is any exclusion or routing logic (e.g., when to prefer this over cotlet_app_guide or over the official API/MCP server it mentions).

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