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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself,' so there is no ambiguity about side effects. It goes further by describing what the return value contains (screens, buttons, fields), which annotations cannot convey, and notes the absence of a public Sendible API to explain why a browser workflow is required.

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, all short and on point, though the ordering buries the most important fact (it only returns instructions) in the second sentence rather than front-loading it. Minor filler such as 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the dated API-check note could be trimmed without loss.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value, and it does so at a high level (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). It stops short of stating the response format or what the agent should do if the returned steps do not match what it sees in the browser, which matters for a guidance-only tool that depends on a separate browser toolchain.

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 and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 (send a post for approval in the user's Sendible account) and then clarifies the crucial twist that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action. That clarification saves the definition from being misleading, given the name implies a write operation. It does not distinguish itself from sibling post tools such as sendible_queue_post or sendible_schedule_post, so it falls short of a 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 one clear routing instruction: after receiving the steps, execute them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Sendible Cloud Browser. What is missing is when to choose this over sibling post-creation tools (queue vs. schedule vs. approval), which an agent would have to infer.

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