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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the tool returns procedural guidance (screens, buttons, fields) and performs no action itself, plus the note that ResMan's official API is restricted to approved Integration Partners, explaining why browser automation is needed.

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 behavior and the handoff to cotlet_browser_* tools are front-loaded, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is filler and the API note with a dated check ('checked 23 Oct 2026') is awkwardly phrased. Roughly a third of the text does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so ('how to do it in ResMan step by step (screens, buttons, fields)'). Combined with the explicit statement that nothing is opened, an agent has enough to call it correctly and know what to do next.

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 parameterless schema applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.

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 specific verb and resource (list work orders in ResMan) and then clarifies the actual behavior: it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the listing. That two-phase framing distinguishes it from the cotlet_browser_* action tools, though the tool name alone would mislead an agent into expecting data back.

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 explicitly says the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and that the agent should 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ResMan Cloud Browser,' which is a clear use-then-follow-up workflow. It does not contrast against sibling list tools (leases, vendors, etc.), but those cover different resources so the omission is minor.

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