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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by stating it "opens nothing by itself" and that it produces procedural guidance rather than data — a critical disclosure an agent could not infer otherwise. It adds the account-scope constraint (user's own ResMan account) and the API partner restriction. It does not cover preconditions such as an authenticated browser session or what happens if the user is not logged in.

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 purpose and the guidance-then-execute workflow are front-loaded, which is good. However, "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" is filler, and "ResMan's official API: ResMan has an API, but only for approved Integration Partners (checked 23 Oct 2026)" is redundantly phrased and carries a stale-feeling date. Those clauses dilute an otherwise tight three-sentence definition.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does cover the return shape (screens, buttons, fields) plus the fact that nothing is executed. What remains missing is how the agent should proceed with the returned steps — handoff expectations, session prerequisites, and failure behavior — which matters for a tool whose whole job is to hand off to a browser workflow.

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 meaning to add, and schema coverage is 100% regardless. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 the specific verb and resource ("List leases") and immediately clarifies the non-obvious twist: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than the lease data itself. It also separates this tool from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by saying execution happens there. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the other resman_list_* siblings, but the resource name is unambiguous.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then perform the action with cotlet_browser_* in the user's ResMan Cloud Browser. It also rules out the official API path for non-partners. No explicit "when not to use" case (e.g., if the user already knows the steps or is an approved Integration Partner) is stated.

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