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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value on top by stating that nothing is opened or mutated by the call itself and that the return value is procedural instructions. The note that ResMan's official API is restricted to approved Integration Partners explains why browser automation is the path, which is useful behavioral context. What it omits is any detail on failure modes or what a partial/ambiguous guide looks like.

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 outcome and the crucial 'opens nothing by itself' clarification before the follow-up instructions. The parenthetical 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is low-value filler, but the API-restriction sentence does earn its place by explaining the constraint.

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 tool with no output schema, the definition is largely sufficient: it says what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result, with only minor gaps around expected formatting or failure handling.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly conveys that no arguments are needed to retrieve the guide.

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 states a concrete outcome (create a work order in ResMan) and immediately clarifies the mechanism: it returns a step-by-step guide of screens, buttons and fields rather than performing the write. This resolves the tension between the imperative name and the read-only nature. It stops short of distinguishing itself from guide-style siblings such as resman_update_work_order_status, so it is not a clean 5.

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 operating sequence: call this first to obtain instructions, then execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ResMan Cloud Browser. That is actionable context an agent could not infer. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to the sibling work-order tools.

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