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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the tool returns screen/button/field-level instructions rather than data, and it does not touch the account. The API-gating note explains why browser automation is the path, adding useful operational context.

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 behavior and next step are front-loaded, but the opening clause 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is promotional filler that adds nothing for tool selection. The dated parenthetical 'checked 14 Oct 2026' is unexplained noise that invites confusion rather than aiding a caller.

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, no-output-schema tool the description covers what comes back (steps with screens, buttons, fields), what does not happen (nothing is opened), and what to do next. The remaining gap is domain scope: it never clarifies what 'open items' means in SnelStart (e.g., outstanding invoice lines), so the agent cannot judge result relevance precisely.

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 no parameters (empty object schema, 100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for zero-parameter tools applies; the description correctly implies no input is required.

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?

States the verb and resource ('List open items in the user's own SnelStart account') and immediately corrects the likely misreading by saying it 'opens nothing by itself' and instead returns step-by-step instructions. The mismatch between the name 'list' and the actual guidance-only behavior is resolved in the text, though an agent must read past the name to learn that no data is returned.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: call this to get the SnelStart UI steps, then carry them out with cotlet_browser_* tools in the SnelStart Cloud Browser. It also clarifies the tool performs no action itself. It stops short of naming when to prefer cotlet_app_guide or other siblings, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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