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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, it discloses the critical behavioral fact that the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions, plus the required follow-up via browser tools. It also proactively notes the Property Finder API is restricted to approved partners, which prevents a plausible wrong-path attempt by the agent.

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 is front-loaded, but the text carries filler ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a long dated API aside '(checked 11 Oct 2026)' that does not help an agent decide or call the tool. It is serviceable but could be tightened significantly.

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-param, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned ('screens, buttons, fields') and what to do next, which is largely complete. It does not address that with no parameters the instructions must be generic rather than listing-specific, leaving a small 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, so the schema-centric baseline is 4; the description neither needs to nor does add parameter detail. It could have clarified how a listing is identified given the empty schema, but for a no-arg tool the schema is sufficient.

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 name and first sentence identify a specific verb and resource ('Unpublish listing in the user's own Property Finder account'), and the second sentence clarifies the tool actually returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. That clarification resolves the initial ambiguity, but the opening line still implies the tool does the unpublishing, and no sibling (e.g. property_finder_publish_listing) is named for contrast.

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?

The description clearly sequences usage: it returns the how-to, then 'do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Property Finder Cloud Browser,' and it explains why the official API is not an option for brokers. It gives solid context and routes to the right follow-up tools, though it states no explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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