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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld=false; the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', which is the key behavioral fact for an agent that might otherwise assume the schedule gets published. It adds real context beyond the annotations (return content shape: screens, buttons, fields) but stops short of describing output format or length.

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 fact (returns instructions, doesn't act) is front-loaded, but the definition is padded with audience framing ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and a dated API-side argument ('checked 22 Oct 2026') that reads as justification rather than operating guidance. Roughly half the text is context an agent does not need to invoke the tool.

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 guide tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers what it returns and what it does not do, which is the essential information. It lacks detail on the guide's structure or how to recover if the steps don't match the UI, but that is a minor gap at this complexity.

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; the baseline for a no-param tool applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (publish schedule in Quinyx) and then immediately clarifies the actual mechanism: it returns a step-by-step how-to rather than performing the publish. That clarification is what separates it from the action siblings, though the name/title still imply an execution tool, so an agent skimming could mistake its role.

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 a clear usage sequence: call this to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools. It also justifies why the API path is not used (no MCP server; API cannot publish schedules). It does not explicitly state when-not to use it versus the quinyx_* action siblings, but the sequencing guidance is strong.

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