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, and the description is consistent with them by stating it "opens nothing by itself" and returns instructions only. It adds real context beyond the annotations — the shape of the return value (screens, buttons, fields) and the follow-up browser workflow — though the closing API-status paragraph adds little behavioral value.

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 constraint (returns steps, opens nothing, then use cotlet_browser_*) is front-loaded in the second sentence, which is good. However the final sentence about Skiddle's beta, non-commercial public API and the absence of an official MCP server is tangential justification rather than actionable instruction, and the long single sentence packing the return shape and the follow-up workflow is dense.

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, read-only guide tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tools to use next. No gap remains that would affect correct invocation.

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; the empty schema with additionalProperties=false leaves nothing for the description to explain. The description correctly spends no words on parameter semantics and instead covers output shape and sequencing.

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 ("Refund orders in the user's own Skiddle account") and immediately clarifies the actual output — a step-by-step how-to covering screens, buttons and fields — which guards against the name's implication that the refund is executed. It is distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* siblings by explicitly deferring the actual clicking to them, though it never contrasts itself with cotlet_app_guide.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: call this to learn the refund flow, then execute it with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Skiddle Cloud Browser. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the other Skiddle siblings (e.g. read_ticket_sales) or cotlet_app_guide as alternatives, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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