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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context beyond that: the output is a step-by-step walkthrough (screens, buttons, fields), that nothing is opened as a side effect, and that the official ResMan API is restricted to approved Integration Partners only. The API note is useful for explaining why a browser-based path exists, though the '(checked 23 Oct 2026)' date is unverifiable and slightly distracting.

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-loads the resource and scope, then the return behavior, then the follow-on tooling, which is a sensible order. The final sentence about ResMan's partner-only API is tangential to invoking the tool and could be trimmed, and the 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' clause adds little.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what an agent needs: what comes back, that the call is side-effect free, and which tools to use next. The one gap is that it doesn't hint at the shape or volume of the returned walkthrough (e.g., sections, ordering), though that is minor given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema declares zero parameters with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies a no-argument call by describing no inputs at all. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

Names a specific resource (move-outs) in a specific account (the user's own ResMan account) and clarifies the actual mechanism: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than data. That clarification is important because the 'list_' naming would otherwise imply it returns records. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other resman_list_* siblings (leases, prospects, work orders), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Explicitly states what this tool does NOT do ('opens nothing by itself') and hands off the actual execution to cotlet_browser_* tools in the ResMan Cloud Browser, which is a clear workflow split an agent can act on. What's missing is when to prefer this over the sibling resman_list_* tools or over cotlet_app_guide, and no exclusions for cases where move-outs aren't in scope.

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