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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description positively reinforces that with 'opens nothing by itself' — a genuinely useful disclosure given the imperative-sounding tool name. It also explains why the browser route exists ('PT Distinction publishes no public API or developer docs'), though it says nothing about how the returned instructions are scoped or how long they are.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the key behavioral caveat, with no filler. The closing note about the absent public API is relevant justification rather than padding, though the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause is largely decorative.

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 tool, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), that it has no side effects, and which tools complete the job. The only missing piece is account targeting, which matters given the complete absence of inputs.

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 beyond the schema; baseline of 4 applies. One residual ambiguity is how the tool knows which user/account to target with no inputs, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assign program in the user's own PT Distinction account') and immediately clarifies the surprising part: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. It distinguishes itself from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, but does not differentiate itself from similar guide-style siblings such as cotlet_app_guide or pt_distinction_send_form.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow order: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the PT Distinction Cloud Browser. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or what to do if the user lacks a PT Distinction account, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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