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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotent, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them by stating it 'opens nothing by itself.' It adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: the return shape is step-by-step UI instructions (screens, buttons, fields) and the follow-on action belongs to the cotlet_browser_* family. It omits how the target post's content is supplied given there are no parameters.

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 action and the clarification that it opens nothing, followed by the hand-off to browser tools. There is minor filler in 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the dated API-check note earns its place only weakly, but nothing is confusing or bloated.

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, read-only guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it performs no action, and which tools carry out the work afterwards. The remaining gap is the implicit input source — no explanation of where the post details come from when the schema is empty.

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 the schema baseline is 4 and no per-argument explanation is required. The one semantic gap is that with an empty schema, the description never explains how the intended post (account, content, timing) is conveyed — presumably from conversation context, but that is left implicit.

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 action on a specific resource and then immediately corrects the name's implication: the tool 'Returns how to do it in Sendible step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself,' so an agent learns it is a guidance/playbook tool, not a writer. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling sendible_schedule_post or sendible_send_post_for_approval, which sound like the tools that actually perform the action.

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 an explicit two-step workflow: call this first to get the steps, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Sendible Cloud Browser,' which is concrete routing guidance. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer sendible_schedule_post or what to do if the user wants an API-based path instead.

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