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

The description adds real value beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the tool is instruction-only and opens nothing ('returns how to do it ... opens nothing by itself'), and it discloses an access constraint (OAuth client ID only via emailing ShootProof support). However, it doesn't state how the step-by-step payload is shaped or whether it's static/deterministic, which is what an agent needs to chain it into browser calls.

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 behavior is front-loaded and useful, but the trailing API/OAuth paragraph is a tangent that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke, and the sentence is a dense multi-clause semicolon chain. The essential information could be conveyed in roughly half the length.

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 input schema, no output schema and a simple read-only instruction tool, the description covers what is returned ('screens, buttons, fields') and what to do next. A bit more on the returned procedure's format would make it fully self-sufficient for chaining into cotlet_browser_* calls.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The only residual ambiguity is how the target gallery is identified at all, but since the output is a generic procedure, that's not a defect in the parameter documentation.

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 verb+resource ('Share gallery in the user's own ShootProof account') and immediately qualifies that it returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the action, distinguishing it from the cotlet_browser_* tools that do the clicking. It could be sharper about what a 'share' means in ShootProof (link, email, permissions), but an agent can tell what it gets.

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 sequencing: call this first to get the procedure, then execute with cotlet_browser_* in the ShootProof Cloud Browser. It also tells the agent not to expect the tool to open anything itself. What's missing is guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., relative to shootproof_create_gallery or a direct API path).

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