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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them, explicitly stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions. It also discloses the return content shape (screens, buttons, fields) and that execution happens via the browser tools, which goes beyond the annotations. The OAuth API aside is context but not directly behavioral for this call.

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 two clauses (returns a step-by-step guide, opens nothing, run it via cotlet_browser_*) are front-loaded and useful, but the trailing OAuth paragraph is tangential to invoking this tool and reads as filler. The long semicolon-linked sentences also make the key point harder to scan than it should be.

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, no-output-schema guide tool, the definition covers purpose, the non-mutating nature, the returned content, and the required follow-up tools. Missing only the concrete return format (e.g. plain text vs structured steps) and any preconditions such as being logged in, which keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify or contradict. No parameter confusion is introduced.

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 names a specific resource (contract) and clarifies that the tool does not actually send anything but returns step-by-step ShootProof instructions. That clarification is essential because the name and title ('Send contract') otherwise imply a mutating action. It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like shootproof_send_invoice, so it is not 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 does give a clear follow-on path: after getting the guide, perform the action with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. However, it never says when this tool is the right choice versus a sibling (e.g. send_invoice, share_gallery) or what prerequisites exist, so usage is implied rather than fully stated.

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