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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this by stating it opens nothing itself and requires a follow-up browser step. It also discloses the shape of the response (ordered screens/buttons/fields), which annotations cannot convey. It does not say whether the guide is account-specific or generic.

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 middle sentence does the real work and is well front-loaded, but the opening is marketing framing and the final sentence is off-topic vendor trivia (REST API, OAuth 2.0, sandbox, a future 'checked' date) that does not help an agent decide or act.

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 telling the agent what comes back (a step-by-step Procore walkthrough) and what to do next (cotlet_browser_* tools), which it does. It omits whether the user must be signed in to Procore before the guide is useful.

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 schema baseline is 4. No parameter behavior is needed, and the description correctly implies there is nothing to supply.

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 second sentence states precisely what the tool returns: a step-by-step guide (screens, buttons, fields) and that it 'opens nothing by itself,' distinguishing it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings. The opening sentence's 'Create RFI ... from ChatGPT' framing still implies an action the tool does not perform, which muddies the verb slightly.

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 explicitly routes the agent: call this first, then perform the creation with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Procore Cloud Browser. It gives no when-not-to-use case (e.g., use procore_list_rfis to check for duplicates first), so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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