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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description reinforces this by stating it opens nothing by itself, which prevents an agent from assuming the hours get recorded, and it discloses the return content (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) — useful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about prerequisites such as the user being signed in.

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 operational content is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the closing note about Shiftbase's Public API and the absence of an official MCP server (with a checked date) is background justification rather than something an agent needs to select or invoke the tool. It is not harmful, but it dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how the result should be used next. What is missing is minor: whether the guidance is specific to the authenticated user's account/permissions, and what to do if the suggested screens are unavailable.

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 empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly implies the call needs no inputs, matching the schema, so it meets the baseline 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: it returns step-by-step guidance (screens, buttons, fields) for adding worked hours in Shiftbase. It explicitly separates itself from the execution tools by saying it 'opens nothing by itself' and pointing to cotlet_browser_* for the actual doing, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 clearly frames the two-step workflow: call this first to get instructions, then perform the action with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Shiftbase Cloud Browser. It does not name a competing guide tool (e.g. cotlet_app_guide) or state exclusions, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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