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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description explains why: the tool 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions. It also discloses the motivating constraint that Skool has no public API or developer docs, which is useful context for why a guidance tool exists. It doesn't describe error modes or the exact shape of the returned steps, but that is a minor gap against covered annotations.

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 key point — it returns instructions and performs nothing — is reasonably front-loaded, but the sentence is dense and mixes purpose, handoff, and an API-history aside. The trailing 'checked 10 Oct 2026' note earns little space for an agent deciding how to call the tool.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: step-by-step screens, buttons, and fields. It is complete enough to call correctly, with the only real gap being how it relates to the similarly named create_event sibling.

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 description doesn't need to explain inputs, and it correctly implies the return is instructional text rather than an executed action.

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 outcome: it returns step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) for creating a Skool calendar event, and explicitly says it opens nothing by itself. That makes the misleading 'create' verb in the name understandable. It never mentions the sibling 'create_event', which sounds like it performs the same task, so an agent can't fully distinguish the two from this text alone.

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 one concrete handoff rule — after reading the instructions, perform the actions with cotlet_browser_* in the Skool Cloud Browser — which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over create_event or update_event, and gives no exclusions for cases where an event can be created another way.

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