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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description still adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the tool returns instructions rather than results and "opens nothing by itself," which is the single most important thing an agent must know before calling it. It stops short of describing the shape or length of the returned procedure, which keeps it from 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?

The core behavioral disclosure is front-loaded and clear, but filler such as "from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent" earns nothing, and the closing GraphQL plan note ("checked 28 Oct 2026") reads as a meta footnote that dilutes the operational instruction. The informational sentence about API tiers explains why the browser route exists but is not needed to call the tool correctly.

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 guide tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns, that it has no side effects, and which tools perform the actual search afterwards. It lacks only details of what the returned procedure looks like or how it should be chained if the first browser step fails.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning the description could add or omit. Nothing here is misleading about inputs.

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 resource and action ("Search posts in the user's own Slab account") and then clarifies the deliverable is a step-by-step procedure ("Returns how to do it in Slab step by step (screens, buttons, fields)"). The only weakness is the residual tension between the name/first sentence, which implies an actual search, and the second sentence, which says it returns instructions and "opens nothing by itself" — an agent must read past the opening clause to learn what the tool really produces.

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?

The description gives forward guidance — call this, then execute the steps with "the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Slab Cloud Browser" — which is genuinely useful sequencing. It does not say when to prefer this over siblings such as slab_read_post or cotlet_app_guide, nor what to do if the returned procedure does not apply, so usage is implied rather than delimited.

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