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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: no browser session is opened by the call itself, execution depends on the Cloud Browser, and the official Property Finder API is unavailable to brokers (with a verification date), which explains why browser automation is the path.

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 critical behavior (returns instructions, performs nothing) should be the first sentence, but the opening instead echoes the tool name with marketing framing. The API-partner paragraph is useful rationale but lengthy and ends with an oddly specific future date ('checked 11 Oct 2026'), which adds noise to an otherwise short 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema guidance tool, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), the absence of side effects, and the required follow-up tool family. Only the response format (structured steps vs. prose) is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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?

There are zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the argument level. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the tool is parameterless by describing it as a pure guidance lookup.

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 the tool does not fetch stats but returns a step-by-step how-to (screens, buttons, fields), and that the actual action must be performed with the cotlet_browser_* siblings. The key fact is buried in the second clause, and the opening sentence ('Get listing stats ... from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') partly restates the name and can read as if data is returned, but the distinction from the browser tools is still explicit.

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 states the operating sequence directly: call this first, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the user's Property Finder Cloud Browser. It also rules out side effects ('opens nothing by itself'). It does not compare against cotlet_app_guide or explain when a generic guide would be preferred, so the alternative routing is only implied.

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