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

The description explicitly says it 'opens nothing by itself', which reinforces the readOnly/non-destructive annotations and prevents an agent from assuming a side effect occurs. It also discloses the shape of the return value (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) even though no output schema exists, and notes Skool has no public API, explaining why the browser follow-up is required. Auth/permission specifics beyond 'the user's own account' are not covered.

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 capability and the critical 'opens nothing by itself' caveat, then the follow-up workflow. The trailing sentence about Skool's official API is justifiable rationale but adds an odd, verifiable-looking date ('checked 10 Oct 2026') that reads as noise rather than information the agent can act on.

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, non-destructive guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and what the agent must do next, which is the core need. The one real gap is the absence of any statement about how this differs from create_lesson, which matters given both exist in the sibling set.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not needlessly invent parameter talk, which is correct here.

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 eventually makes clear what the tool actually does: it returns a step-by-step guide (screens, buttons, fields) for adding a course lesson, rather than mutating anything itself. The opening sentence ('Add course lesson in the user's own Skool account') frames it as an action, which is only resolved in the second sentence, and it never differentiates itself from the sibling create_lesson tool that presumably performs the actual write.

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 gives clear operational context: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with cotlet_browser_* tools against the user's Skool Cloud Browser. That is actionable routing. What is missing is any exclusion — it never says when to use create_lesson or another sibling instead of this guidance tool.

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