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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true, it explicitly says it opens nothing by itself, which prevents an agent from assuming a message actually gets sent. It also adds useful surrounding context — the guide is a step-by-step sequence and execution happens in the user's Cloud Browser — plus a note that Rent Manager's official API is not self-serve, justifying the browser route. It still does not describe the shape or granularity of the returned steps.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the critical "opens nothing" caveat, then the follow-up tools. The closing sentence about Rent Manager's official API is tangential to calling the tool but short enough to earn its place as justification for the browser path.

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 reference tool the description covers the essential contract, but the central ambiguity remains: the name says "message tenant" while no argument identifies a tenant, and the description never clarifies whether the returned steps are tenant-agnostic. An agent can call it, but cannot predict what it will get back well enough to plan the following browser steps.

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 applies. The absence of parameters is itself consistent with a generic how-to reference rather than a targeted 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 this is a documentation/guidance tool, not an action tool: it "Returns how to do it in Rent Manager step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself." That corrects the action-implying name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling rent_manager_* tools or explain why it exists alongside rent_manager_list_tenants and similar.

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 intended workflow is stated: call this first, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Rent Manager Cloud Browser, which is genuine routing guidance. But the conditions for using it are only implied — nothing says when this is the wrong choice versus cotlet_app_guide, and with zero parameters the agent is never told how a specific tenant is identified or what to do if the guide does not match the situation.

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