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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description earns credit by explaining why: 'opens nothing by itself' resolves the apparent conflict between the mutation-flavored name and the read-only hint. It also sketches the return value (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields) and the required follow-up tool family, plus the API-gating constraint with a check date. It does not say what happens if the guide is stale or how granular the steps are.

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, but the front-loading is wrong: the misleading 'Add relation' framing comes first and the decisive fact ('opens nothing by itself') arrives mid-sentence. The phrase 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is marketing filler that adds nothing to tool selection. It is dense but not wasteful overall.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it covers the workflow and the non-mutation guarantee well. However, it never explains how a generic step-by-step guide relates to the specific relation the user wants (name, type), which is a real ambiguity for a 0-param tool. Adequate but with a visible hole.

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 no schema semantics for the description to supplement; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the parameter surface.

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 lands on a specific, checkable behavior: it returns a step-by-step how-to (screens, buttons, fields) for adding a relation and executes nothing. That is clear once read in full, but the opening clause 'Add relation in the user's own SnelStart account' asserts a capability the tool does not have, so an agent skimming the first line could misfile it as a mutation. It also never distinguishes itself by name from siblings like snelstart_book_entry or cotlet_app_guide, which is the remaining gap.

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 an explicit workflow: call this first to get the steps, then perform them with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the SnelStart Cloud Browser. The note that the official API is gated explains why the browser route is required, which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming any non-browser alternative sibling.

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