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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which could look contradictory against a 'create' name; the description resolves this by stating it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, plus the dependency on cotlet_browser_* tools. It does not describe output shape in detail, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 non-execution caveat and the follow-up tool chain are front-loaded and earn their place, but the opening audience filler ('from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent') and the dated aside ('checked 28 Oct 2026') consume space without helping the agent 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies what is missing: that the return value is procedural guidance and that execution requires the browser tools. A brief note on what the returned steps look like would make it complete, but nothing essential is absent.

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 4 baseline applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing parameter discussion where the schema is empty.

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 ("Create inspection in the user's own Spectora account") and immediately clarifies the surprising part: the tool returns step-by-step guidance rather than performing the write. It does not differentiate against the other spectora_* siblings (e.g. get/reschedule), so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear usage sequence: call this to get the screens/buttons/fields, then execute with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Spectora Cloud Browser. It also rules out an alternative path by noting Spectora's official API and read-only MCP server stop short of scheduling, so the agent knows not to go that route. No explicit when-not-to-use case is given.

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