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

The description does real work beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool opens nothing by itself and only returns screen/button/field instructions, which resolves why readOnlyHint=true applies to something called 'create'. It also discloses the underlying constraint (Skool has no public API or developer docs, checked 10 Oct 2026), justifying the browser-based path. It does not cover output size, rate limits, or auth requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the mechanism and the constraint that motivates it. Phrasing is slightly awkward ('Returns how to do it in Skool step by step') and the API-provenance sentence is useful context rather than filler.

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 so ('screens, buttons, fields'). The agent knows the call is non-destructive and that execution happens elsewhere. The only missing piece is disambiguation from the `create_post` 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 and there are no parameter meanings the description needs to compensate for. The empty schema is consistent with a tool that only returns static guidance.

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 and then clarifies the actual mechanism: the tool returns a step-by-step guide rather than performing the post. That distinction is essential given the tool name implies a write. It falls short of 5 because a sibling named `create_post` exists and the description never explains how this differs from it.

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 downstream guidance — run this first, then act with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Skool Cloud Browser — so the workflow position is implied. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule and never routes the agent away from the near-identical `create_post` sibling, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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