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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this in a way the name does not: it "opens nothing by itself", so no navigation or state change occurs, and it returns procedural content rather than data. This is exactly the clarification an agent needs given the mutation-flavored name. It does not cover dependencies such as an active Spectora Cloud Browser session being required for the follow-up step, 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 guidance is front-loaded and the browser-tool hand-off is well placed, but the closing sentence about Spectora's official API and MCP server concerns scheduling, which is unrelated to agreements, and reads as an uncorrected carry-over. That sentence occupies roughly a third of the text without helping the agent decide or act.

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, output-schema-less tool, the description usefully characterizes the return as step-by-step screens/buttons/fields and states the required follow-up tooling. Missing is any prerequisite note (browser session availability, account state) and the off-topic API sentence distracts rather than completes the picture.

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 at 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; the description correctly implies no input is needed to obtain the walkthrough.

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 pairs the resource (agreement) with the actual operation: it "Returns how to do it in Spectora step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself", which is the key disambiguation from the API-backed siblings like spectora_create_inspection. The opening imperative "Add agreement" is slightly misleading on its own, but it is immediately corrected by the read-only clarification in the same sentence.

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 explicit sequencing: call this first to get instructions, then "do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Spectora Cloud Browser". That is clear context for when to reach for it and what the follow-up step is. It stops short of naming exclusions (e.g., when the official API/MCP path is preferable), so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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