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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds meaningful behavior: it returns a step-by-step guide rather than sending anything, and it opens nothing itself. The API availability note (no public API, no self-service keys, dated) explains why browser tools are required. Doesn't address authentication state of the Cloud Browser session, keeping it from a 5.

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-loaded with the action, followed immediately by the clarification about output and the handoff to browser tools. The final API-availability sentence repeats "Service Autopilot" and reads slightly tangential, but it justifies the browser approach.

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 parameterless, non-mutating guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it performs no action, which tools execute the action, and why the official API isn't an option. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no argument semantics the description needs to compensate for. The description adds no parameter detail because none exist.

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 clearly states what the tool actually does ("Returns how to do it in Service Autopilot step by step (screens, buttons, fields)") and corrects the potentially misleading verb in the name with "opens nothing by itself." An agent can distinguish it from the cotlet_browser_* siblings that perform the action. Minor deduction because the name says "send" while the tool only returns instructions, which takes two readings to fully resolve.

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?

Explicit next-step routing: after getting the guide, do it with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Service Autopilot Cloud Browser. This tells the agent the correct sequencing. It doesn't state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus calling the other service_autopilot_* tools), so it stops short of a 5.

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