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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the tool opens nothing, it returns procedural guidance rather than records, and the actual mutation happens in the browser tooling. This is exactly the kind of clarification annotations cannot carry. The unrelated API/MCP-server paragraph dilutes rather than adds behavioral signal.

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 guidance lives in the first two sentences, but the final sentence about REST API v2, webhooks, analytics and a beta MCP server at mcp.productboard.com contributes nothing to selecting or invoking this tool, and its 'checked 22 Oct 2026' timestamp is a future-dated claim that invites doubt. Roughly a third of the text is off-topic, and the opening sentence competes with the clarification that follows it.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so only loosely — 'step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' gestures at the return shape without saying whether it is prose, a numbered list, or structured data the agent must parse. For a tool whose entire value is the returned instructions, that is an adequate but incomplete account.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims are made that could mislead.

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 does disclose the real behavior — it 'returns how to do it in Productboard step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself' — which is critical, since the name and title imply an actual search. But it opens by claiming to 'Search features in the user's own Productboard account', so the agent reads two different purposes in two consecutive sentences and must decide which is the tool's. The verb+resource is specific; the framing is muddled.

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 an explicit hand-off: get the steps here, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Productboard Cloud Browser. That is a concrete when-and-how. It stops short of saying when not to use this tool, and the closing mention of Productboard's REST API and beta MCP server names alternatives without saying whether the agent should prefer them.

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